do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-315/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Groupe Partouche v Commission
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, competition law, economic concentration, game of chance








C_2010274EN.01002501.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/25





Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Groupe Partouche v Commission
(Case T-315/10)
()
2010/C 274/39
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Groupe Partouche SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-J. Sebag, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Commission not to object to a concentration;










—


Order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the appolicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3333 of 21 May 2010 declaring compatible with the common market and with the Agreement on the European Economic Area a proposed concentration by which Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière acquire joint control of the undertaking Newco, which is to develop and operate an internet poker site in France.
In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission should have referred examination of the concentration in question back to the French Republic, having regard to its possible significant effect on competition in France in the relevant market.
Case T-316/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — HIM v European Commission
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, administrative contract, contractual liability, subcontracting








C_2010274EN.01002502.xml










9.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/25





Action brought on 23 July 2010 — HIM v European Commission
(Case T-316/10)
()
2010/C 274/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Health Information Management (HIM) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Zeegers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the present application admissible and well-founded and, consequently,










—


order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 11 821,35, together with default interest at the statutory rate applicable in Belgium from 16 June 2010;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses inclusive, the amount of which is provisionally fixed at EUR 5 000.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the General Court, in essence, to declare that, for the purposes of calculation of the applicant’s general costs to be met by the Commission (in respect of contracts concluded under the eTen programme specifically), that is to say, that part of the general costs capable of being connected to the services of the staff working on the project, not including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff, since those sub-contractors do not incur any general costs to be borne by the applicant. Consequently, the costs of sub-contracts should not be included in the total amount of personnel costs by which the total amount of general costs is divided to arrive at the denominator to be used to determine the percentage of eligible general costs.
In support of its action, the applicant submits that, since sub-contractors’ costs do not form part of the eligible personnel costs, the fact of including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff when calculating the amount of the total personnel costs to be used to determine the percentage of eligible general costs gives rise to an inconsistency.
In addition, the fact of including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff causes damage to the applicant, since that method results in an increase in the amount of the denominator and, in consequence, gives a proportional decrease in the percentage of eligible general costs.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, citrus fruit, common customs tariff








C_2010201EN.01000301.xml










23.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/3





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
2010/C 201/03
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are hereby amended as follows:

Page 47


0805 90 00 (Other)

The following point 5 is added:







‘5.


oroblanco or sweetie (Citrus grandis Osbeck × Citrus paradisi Macf.), a cross between an acidless pomelo and a white grapefruit, with a thick rind in a bright green or golden colour; it is slightly larger in size than a grapefruit but with fewer seeds and a sweeter taste.’







(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.
Corrigendum to the notice of competitions EPSO/AD/178-179/10 ( OJ C 110 A, 29.4.2010 )
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU)








CA2010201EN.01000201.xml










23.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 201/2





Corrigendum to the notice of competitions EPSO/AD/178-179/10

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 110 A of 29 April 2010
)

(2010/C 201 A/02)
On page 4, in section V.2, last paragraph:

for:


‘The number of candidates admitted to the assessment centre will be approximately three times the number of successful candidates indicated in the competition notice and will be published on EPSO's website (www.eu-careers.eu).’,


read:


‘The number of candidates admitted to the assessment centre will not exceed three times the number of successful candidates indicated in the competition notice and will be published on EPSO's website (www.eu-careers.eu).’;

On page 6, in section VI.4:

for:















‘4.



Marking






…

Specific competencies

Marking: 0 — 100
Pass mark: 50 points
…’,






read:















‘4.



Marking







Specific competencies

Marking: 0 — 100
Pass mark: 50 points

Knowledge of main language (language 1)

Marking: 0 — 10
Pass mark: 8 points
…’.
Case T-306/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Yusef v Commission
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment, international sanctions, terrorism








C_2010260EN.01002002.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/20





Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Yusef v Commission
(Case T-306/10)
()
2010/C 260/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hani El Sayyed Elsebai Yusef (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister and H. Miller, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


declare that the Commission’s failure to act and remove the applicant from annex 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 881/2002 was unlawful;










—


order immediately the Commission to remove the applicant from the said annex;










—


order that the Commission pays, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant and any sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applies under Article 265 TFEU for the revocation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1629/2005 of 5 October 2005 amending for the 54th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qa’ida Network and the Taliban (1) as concerns him.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
First, he submits that the Commission has failed to independently review the basis of the applicant’s inclusion in annex 1 at any point, or required any reasons for that inclusion.
Second, he claims that the Commission has failed to provide to the applicant any reasons justifying his inclusion in annex 1 in breach of his right to an effective judicial remedy, the right to defend himself and in breach of his rights to property under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third, he contends that the Commission’s failure to remove the applicant from annex 1 is irrational as there are no reasons available which would satisfy the relevant criteria for inclusion in annex 1 and the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office stances that the applicant no longer fulfils the relevant criteria.


(1)  OJ 2005 L 260 p. 10
Case T-305/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01004103.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/41






Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)
(Case T-305/10)
()
(2010/C 288/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy (Westerburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Loos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DIPTYQUE SAS (Paris, France)

Form of order sought







—


Annul, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2010 in Case R 1217/2009-1 or amend it in so far as the applicant was unsuccessful;










—


order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark DYNIQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 41 and 44.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DIPTYQUE SAS

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark DIPTYQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 4 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed in part.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-370/10 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-243/08: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), competition law, consumer protection, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2010260EN.01001101.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/11





Appeal brought on 23 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-243/08: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.
(Case C-370/10 P)
()
2010/C 260/14
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm, M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Allow the Appeal against the Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 (Case T-243/08);










—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court;










—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007-2);










—


As appropriate remit the case to the OHIM for fresh consideration;










—


Order the Intervener and the OHIM to pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in finding that it need not take into account the reputation of the earlier trade marks in finding that the conditions for the applicability of Article 8 (1)(b) and 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) were not met.
The General Court violated the system of Article 8 Community Trade Mark Regulation I carrying out a single factual assessment of similarity with implications both under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation, even though both provisions have entirely distinct sets of tests.
The General Court erred in law and violated Article 76 Community Trade Mark Regulation in leaving the Second Board of Appeal's conclusion unobjected that the market circumstances as regards the use of house marks on the one hand and trademarks for specific products on the other hand were irrelevant.
The General Court violated Article 77 Community Trade Mark Regulation by leaving the Board of Appeal's manifestly wrongful use of its discretion to hold an oral hearing unobjected.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, bulb vegetable, common customs tariff








C_2010201EN.01000101.xml










23.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/1





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
2010/C 201/01
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are hereby amended as follows:

Page 40


0703 20 00 (Garlic)

The following paragraph is added:

‘Garlic consisting of a single bulb without separate cloves, having an approximate diameter of between 25 and 50 mm and described in the trade as “solo garlic”, “pearl garlic”, “single bulb garlish”, “single clove garlic” or “monobulb garlic” (or any similar commercial denomination), is also covered by this subheading. This subheading does not cover so-called “great round-headed garlic” or “elephant garlic” (Allium ampeloprasum, falling under subheading 0703 90 00), which consists of a single bulb of an approximate diameter of 60 mm or more (i.e., significantly bigger and heavier than a multi-clove garlic bulb). The species Allium sativum and Allium ampeloprasum differ also regarding their respective gene pools.’



(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, fruit vegetable








C_2010201EN.01000201.xml










23.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/2





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities
2010/C 201/02
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a), second indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are amended as follows:

Page 43

The Explanatory Notes to subheading 0711 40 00 (Cucumbers and Gherkins) are amended as follows:






1.


The first paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘This subheading includes cucumbers and gherkins simply put into large vessels containing brine which, possibly with added vinegar or acetic acid, ensures that they are provisionally preserved during transportation and storage in as far as they are unsuitable for consumption in that state. These products usually contain at least 10 % of salt by weight.’










2.


The last paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘However, cucumbers and gherkins, whether or not preserved in brine, having undergone a complete lactic fermentation, fall in Chapter 20. Cucumbers and gherkins that have undergone a complete lactic fermentation can be distinguished by the fact that in cross-section the entire surface of the pulp appears glassy (i.e., somewhat transparent).’





Page 84

Chapter 20 (Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants)
Between the title PREPARATIONS OF VEGETABLES, FRUIT, NUTS OR OTHER PARTS OF PLANTS and Note 4 the following is inserted:

‘General
This Chapter also covers cucumbers and gherkins that have undergone a complete lactic fermentation.
However, cucumbers and gherkins that have not undergone a complete lactic fermentation and are provisionally preserved in brine are to be classified under CN code 0711 40 00 if they are not suitable for immediate consumption. In general, such products contain at least 10 % by weight of salt.’



(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.
Corrigendum to the notice of competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5) ( OJ C 64 A, 16.3.2010 )
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU)








CA2010201EN.01000101.xml










23.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 201/1





Corrigendum to the notice of competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 64 A of 16 March 2010
)

(2010/C 201 A/01)
On page 4, in section V.4:

for:















‘4.



Marking






Your specific competencies in the field will be marked out of 20.
Pass mark: 10
…’,






read:















‘4.



Marking







Specific competencies in the field

Marking: 0 — 20
Pass mark: 10 points

Knowledge of main language (language 1)

Marking: 0 — 10
Pass mark: 8 points
…’.
Regulation (EU) No 674/2010 of the European Central Bank of 23 July 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 63/2002 (ECB/2001/18) concerning statistics on interest rates applied by monetary financial institutions to deposits and loans vis-à-vis households and non-financial corporations (ECB/2010/7)
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European Central Bank, bank deposit, credit, data collection, financial institution, interest, statistics








L_2010196EN.01002301.xml










28.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 196/23








            REGULATION (EU) No 674/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
         
of 23 July 2010
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 63/2002 (ECB/2001/18) concerning statistics on interest rates applied by monetary financial institutions to deposits and loans vis-à-vis households and non-financial corporations
(ECB/2010/7)


THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (1), and in particular to Articles 5(1) and 6(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The quality of the minimum national sample size determined by the defined criteria has to be further assessed and therefore an extension of the relevant transitional period is needed to study this matter.












(2)


Regulation (EC) No 63/2002 of the European Central Bank of 20 December 2001 concerning statistics on interest rates applied by monetary financial institutions to deposits and loans vis-à-vis households and non-financial corporations (ECB/2001/18) (2) should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The introductory sentence of the first paragraph of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 63/2002 (ECB/2001/18) is replaced by the following:

                  ‘Until and including the reference month of December 2013, paragraph 10 of Annex I reads as follows:’.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 July 2010.


For the Governing Council of the ECB


The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET
            





(1)  
            OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 8.

(2)  
            OJ L 10, 12.1.2002, p. 24.
COMMISSION OPINION APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015  Communication of Mr Šefčovič
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Malta, appointment of staff

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 23.7.2010 
SEC(2010)938 final 

COMMISSION OPINION 

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 

Communication of Mr Šefčovič 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION OPINION 

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 

Communication of Mr Šefčovič 

According to article 302, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union,  the  members  of  the  Committee  are  appointed  by  the  Council,  which  consults  the 
Commission.  On  22  June  2010,  the  Council  requested  the  Commission’s  opinion  on  the 
nomination  of  members  of  the  EESC  from  4  Member  States  (FR,  MT,  FIN,  LUX)  –  see 
annex. 

The Commission hereby decides to give a positive answer on the proposed appointment. 

EN 

2 

   EN
Corrigendum to the notice of competitions EPSO/AD/180-181-182/10 ( OJ C 110 A, 29.4.2010 )
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU)








CA2010201EN.01000301.xml










23.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 201/3





Corrigendum to the notice of competitions EPSO/AD/180-181-182/10

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 110 A of 29 April 2010
)

(2010/C 201 A/03)
On page 13, in section IV.2, last paragraph:

for:


‘The number of candidates admitted to the assessment centre will be approximately three times the number of successful candidates indicated in the competition notice and will be published on EPSO's website (www.eu-careers.eu).’,


read:


‘The number of candidates admitted to the assessment centre will not exceed three times the number of successful candidates indicated in the competition notice and will be published on EPSO's website (www.eu-careers.eu).’;

On page 14, in section V.4:

for:















‘4.



Marking






…

Specific competencies

Marking: 0 — 100
Pass mark: 50 points
…’,






read:















‘4.



Marking






…

Specific competencies

Marking: 0 — 100
Pass mark: 50 points

Knowledge of main language (language 1)

Marking: 0 — 10
Pass mark: 8 points
…’.