do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-298/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Arrieta D. Gross v OHIM — Toro Araneda (BIODANZA)
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment








C_2010260EN.01001702.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/17





Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Arrieta D. Gross v OHIM — Toro Araneda (BIODANZA)
(Case T-298/10)
()
2010/C 260/24
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Christina Arrieta D. Gross (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-P. Ewert, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rolando Mario Toro Araneda (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 April 2010 in case R 1149/2009-2;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BIODANZA’, for goods and services in classes 16, 41 and 44

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2905152 of the word mark ‘BIODANZA’, for goods and services in classes 16 and 41; Danish trade mark registration No VA 199500708 of the word mark ‘BIODANZA’, for goods and services in classes 16, 41 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services and allowed the application to proceed for the remaining goods of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition entirely

Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 42(2) and 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the applicant did not prove that the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in a Member State in which the earlier national trade mark is protected for use in the Community.
By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Rule 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal failed to invite the applicant to provide the proof required as it should have specified.
Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.5675 — Syngenta/Monsanto's Sunflower Seed Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agro-industry, chemical industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, seed








C_2010182EN.01000101.xml










7.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/1







Initiation of proceedings
(Case COMP/M.5675 — Syngenta/Monsanto's Sunflower Seed Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2010/C 182/01)

On 21 June 2010, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 / 22967244) or by post, under reference COMP/M.5675 — Syngenta/Monsanto's Sunflower Seed Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Joined Cases T-440/07, T-465/07 and T-1/08: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Huta Buczek and Others v Commission
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, State aid, action for annulment, control of State aid, iron and steel industry, redemption








C_2010246EN.01003901.xml










11.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/39





Order of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Huta Buczek and Others v Commission
(Joined Cases T-440/07, T-465/07 and T-1/08) (1)

()
2010/C 246/66
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered the partial removal of the joined cases from the register.


(1)  OJ C 64, 08.03.2008.
Case T-440/07, T-465/07 and T-1/08: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Huta Buczek and Others v Commission (No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, State aid, control of State aid, iron and steel industry, redemption








C_2010260EN.01001401.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/14





Order of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Huta Buczek and Others v Commission
(Case T-440/07, T-465/07 and T-1/08) (1)

(No need to adjudicate)
2010/C 260/18
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicants: Huta Buczek Sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyer) (Case T-440/07); Emilian Salej, acting as liquidator of Technologie Buczek S.A. (Laryszów, Poland); Technologie Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyer) (Case T-465/07); and Buczek Automotive Sp z o.o. (Sosnowiec) (represented by: T. Gackowski initially, then D. Szlachetko-Reiter and finally J. Jurczyk, lawyers) (Case T-1/08)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, M. Kaduczak, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Niechciał initially, then M. Krasnodebska-Tomkiel and M. Rzotkiewicz, Agents) (Cases T-440/07 and T-1/08).

Re:

Applications for partial annulment of the Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the application in Case T-465/07, as brought by Emilian Salej.










2.


The parties are to bear their own costs relating to Case T-465/07, as brought by Emilian Salej.






(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
Case T-295/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Camara v Council
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Guinea, action for annulment, international sanctions, the EU's international role








C_2010234EN.01005102.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/51





Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Camara v Council
(Case T-295/10)
()
2010/C 234/91
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kerfalla Person Camara (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen under Article 6 of that regulation.
In support of his action, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging:






—


a manifest error of assessment in including the applicant on the list of natural or legal persons entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen;










—


an infringement of Article 215(3) TFEU since the contested regulation does not contain any legal guarantees, in particular procedural guarantees;










—


an infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as the contested regulation infringes, (i) the principle of non-discrimination by maintaining the applicant's name on the list of persons sanctioned because of social background, (ii) his rights of defence in that it does not provide for any procedure to inform the applicant of the evidence against him, (iii) the right to an effective judicial remedy in that the Council did not inform the applicant of his rights of appeal, and (iv) the applicant's right to property.






(1)  OJ 2009 L 346, p. 26.
Case T-60/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator(stabilator) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for community figurative mark stabilator — Earlier Community word mark STABILAT — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010221EN.01004202.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/42





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator(stabilator)
(Case T-60/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for community figurative mark stabilator - Earlier Community word mark STABILAT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 221/69
Language of the case: German.

Parties


Applicant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Solms, Germany) (represented by: A. Zinnecker and T. Bösling, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Stabilator sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: M. Kacprzak, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008 (Cases R 483/2008-4 and R 705/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Stabilator sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, of 1.5.2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010182EN.01001101.xml










7.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/11







Euro exchange rates (1)


            6 July 2010
         
(2010/C 182/04)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2579 




JPY


Japanese yen


110,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4534 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82950 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6250 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,3373 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0685 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,485 




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466 




HUF


Hungarian forint


284,85 




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528 




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7091 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1009 




RON


Romanian leu


4,2361 




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9589 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4788 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3339 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,7979 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8112 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7478 




KRW


South Korean won


1 537,75 




ZAR


South African rand


9,6285 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5287 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,1939 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 405,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0322 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,363 




RUB


Russian rouble


39,1015 




THB


Thai baht


40,787 




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2215 




MXN


Mexican peso


16,3433 




INR


Indian rupee


58,9000 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-557/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM — Ultra (M PAY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark M PAY — Earlier Community and national word marks MPAY24 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), electrical equipment, trade-mark law








C_2010221EN.01004101.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/41





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM — Ultra (M PAY)
(Case T-557/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark M PAY - Earlier Community and national word marks MPAY24 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 221/66
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H-G. Zeiner, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between mPAY24 GmbH and Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007-1) in so far as that decision dismissed the opposition brought by mPAY24 GmbH;










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
Case C-339/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 July 2010 — Krasimir Asparuhov Estov, Monika Lucien Ivanova and KEMKO INTERNATIONAL EAD v Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, competition, interpretation of the law








C_2011013EN.01001601.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 July 2010 — Krasimir Asparuhov Estov, Monika Lucien Ivanova and ‘KEMKO INTERNATIONAL’ EAD v Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria
(Case C-339/10)
()
2011/C 13/26
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Krasimir Asparuhov Estov, Monika Lyusien Ivanova and ‘KEMKO INTERNATIONAL’ EAD

Defendant: Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria
By order of 12 November 2010, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that it clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred by the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria).
Case C-337/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2010 — Georg Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, European official, holiday, interpretation of the law, retired person, sick leave








C_2010301EN.01000401.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2010 — Georg Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main
(Case C-337/10)
()
2010/C 301/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: Georg Neidel

Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) also apply to the employment relationships of public servants?










2.


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC also cover entitlements to annual leave where national law provides for such an entitlement of more than four weeks?










3.


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC also apply to entitlements to leave of absence granted under national law in addition to annual leave in compensation for work performed on public holidays owing to the irregular distribution of working time?










4.


Can a public servant who has retired base an entitlement to payment in lieu of annual leave directly on Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC if he has been prevented from working by sickness and has not therefore been able to take leave in the form of leave of absence from work?










5.


Can such an entitlement to payment in lieu be at least partly precluded by the premature forfeiture of entitlement to leave prescribed in national law?










6.


Does the scale of the entitlement to payment in lieu based on Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC extend only to the minimum leave of four weeks guaranteed by Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC, or does the entitlement to a payment in lieu also extend to the additional leave entitlements for which national law provides? Do those extended leave entitlements also include entitlements to leave of absence arising solely from a particular distribution of working time?






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)
Commission Regulation (EU) No 596/2010 of 7 July 2010 adapting Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 on marketing standards for olive oil on account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, Romania, labelling, marketing standard, olive oil, packaging








L_2010173EN.01002701.xml










8.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 173/27








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 596/2010
of 7 July 2010
         
adapting Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 on marketing standards for olive oil on account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania,


Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 56 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


It is necessary to make a technical adaptation to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 (1) on account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania to the European Union.












(2)


The second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 requires Member States to notify the Commission of the measures taken to ensure compliance with that Regulation, including the system of penalties, no later than 31 December 2002. In order to allow Bulgaria and Romania to meet this requirement, a date after accession should be established for those Member States.












(3)


Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The following subparagraph is added to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002:
‘Bulgaria and Romania shall communicate to the Commission the measures referred to in the first paragraph no later than 31 December 2010, and the amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.’


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 July 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 155, 14.6.2002, p. 27.
Case T-111/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Agrofert Holding v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings — Refusal to grant access)
Date: 2010-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), confidentiality, exchange of information, merger, provision of documents








C_2010221EN.01003501.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/35





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Agrofert Holding v Commission
(Case T-111/07) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings - Refusal to grant access)
2010/C 221/54
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Agrofert Holding a.s. (Pyšelská, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Pokorný and D. Šalek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Costa de Oliveira, and subsequently by P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by A. Kruse and S. Johannesson, and subsequently by S. Johannesson, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by J. Himmanen, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by B. Weis Fogh, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA, (Płock, Poland), (represented by S. Sołtysiński, K. Michałowska and M. Olechowski, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of, first, the Commission’s decision of 2 August 2006 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning the notification and pre notification procedure in relation to the acquisition of Unipetrol by Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (COMP/M.3543) and, second, Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 confirming that refusal

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the head of claim seeking annulment of the reply of the European Commission of 2 August 2006 and that requesting the Court to order the Commission to provide the applicant with the documents requested are inadmissible;










2.


Annuls Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to documents in Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and third parties, and refusing access to the internal documents and legal advice drawn up in that case;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs;










4.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Denmark and Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.