do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5895 — Keolis Nordic/Busslink Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment, means of public conveyance, merger control, provision of services, rail transport, road transport, underground railway








C_2010156EN.01000801.xml










16.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5895 — Keolis Nordic/Busslink Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 156/04






1.


On 10 June 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Keolis Nordic AB (‘Keolis Nordic’, Sweden), subsidiary of Keolis SA, which is jointly controlled by SNCF-Participations (‘SNCF-P’, France) and Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec (‘CDPQ’, Canada), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Busslink i Sverige AB (‘Busslink’, Sweden), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Keolis Nordic: investment in transport services including bus, coach, railway and light railway services in Sweden and Denmark,










—


for Busslink: operation of bus services for Public Transportation Authorities in Sweden.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5895 — Keolis Nordic/Busslink Group, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case T-487/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Kureha Corp v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN — Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark — Time-limits — Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2010209EN.01003502.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/35





Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Kureha Corp v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)
(Case T-487/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN - Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark - Time-limits - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2010/C 209/52
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kureha Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and O. Sude, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1631/2007-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and Kureha Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kureha Corp. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);










3.


Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
Organisation of working time: persons performing mobile road transport activities ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 June 2010 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/15/EC on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (COM(2008)0650 – C6-0354/2008 – 2008/0195(COD))
Date: 2010-06-16
Institutions: Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: arrangement of working time, occupational safety, road safety, road transport, working time








CE2011236EN.01018602.xml










12.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 236/186





Wednesday 16 June 2010Organisation of working time: persons performing mobile road transport activities ***I
P7_TA(2010)0221
European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 June 2010 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/15/EC on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (COM(2008)0650 – C6-0354/2008 – 2008/0195(COD))
2011/C 236 E/46
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,
having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0650),
having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 71 and 137(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0354/2008),
having regard to the Commission Communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),
having regard to Article 294(3) and Articles 91 and 153(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 25 March 2009 (1),
after consulting the Committee of the Regions,
having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0137/2010),






1.


Rejects the Commission proposal;










2.


Calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal and take appropriate steps together with Parliament to submit a new proposal;










3.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  OJ C 228, 22.9.2009, p. 78.
Case C-296/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez
Date: 2010-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, parental responsibility








C_2010221EN.01003001.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez
(Case C-296/10)
()
2010/C 221/48
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bianca Purrucker

Defendant: Guillermo Vallés Pérez

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (‘Brussels IIA’) (1) applicable if the court of a Member State first seised by one party to resolve matters of parental responsibility is called upon to grant only provisional measures and the court of another Member State subsequently seised by the other party in the same cause of action is called upon to rule on the substance of the matter?










2.


Is that provision also applicable if a ruling in the isolated proceedings for provisional measures in one Member State is not capable of recognition in another Member State within the meaning of Article 21 of Regulation No 2201/2003?










3.


Is the seising of a court in a Member State for isolated provisional measures to be equated to seising as to the substance of the matter within the meaning of Article 19(2) of Regulation No 2201/2003 if under the national rules of procedure of that State a subsequent action to resolve the issue as to the substance of the matter must be brought in that court within a specified period in order to avoid procedural disadvantages?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000; OJ 2003 L388, p. 1.
Case T-295/08: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — CPS Color Group v OHIM-Fema Farben and Putze (TEMACOLOR)
Date: 2010-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, dyestuffs industry, trade-mark law








C_2010221EN.01005902.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/59





Order of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — CPS Color Group v OHIM-Fema Farben and Putze (TEMACOLOR)
(Case T-295/08) (1)

()
2010/C 221/94
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
Case T-266/10: Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2010-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, anti-discriminatory measure, operation of the Institutions, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, regions of Spain








C_2010221EN.01005401.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/54





Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-266/10)
()
2010/C 221/86
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Mrs Nuria Díaz Abdal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the European Commission’s decision of 11 May 2010 declaring the suspension of the interim payment application submitted by Spain on 10 December 2009 on the grounds stated in Part I of the legal reasoning set out in the originating application;










—


Uphold the claim that the European Commission should pay interest on account of the delay in the actual payment of the interim sums applied for and improperly suspended;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the Commission’s decision to interrupt the payment deadline in respect of the interim payment application submitted by Spain on 10 December 2009. That interim payment application, for a total amount of EUR 6 509 540,26, relates to the Operational Programme for Community Assistance of the European Social Fund in the framework of the Objectives of Convergence for the Basque Country (CCI 2007ES052PO010).
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those already raised in Case T-263/10 Spain v Commission.