do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-384/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment, control of State aid, infringement of EU law








C_2010288EN.01006402.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/64






Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-384/10)
()
(2010/C 288/115)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4147 of 30 June 2010, reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following (groups of) projects: ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133), ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061), and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the context of the Cohesion Fund, the Commission granted assistance to various projects, in relation to ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133) [Decision C(2001) 4113 of 18 December 2001], ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) [Decision C(2000) 4316 of 29 December 2000], and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061) [Decision C(2002) 4689 of 24 December 2002].
The different projects were to be carried out by means of various contracts for work.
The contested decision reduces the assistance initially granted by the Cohesion Fund, by means of the corresponding financial corrections.
In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:






1.


Breach of Article H.2 of Regulation No 1994/1164 EC, (1) in so far as:






—


a financial correction is being applied for breaches of EU public procurement directives to contracts which are not, however, subject to those directives;










—


a financial correction is being applied for a breach of EU legislation which has not, however, taken place, since the subject-matter of the contracts has not been unlawfully split up.














2.


Alternatively, in relation to the all of the foregoing, breach of the regulation referred to, in so far as Directive 93/37/EEC on public works contracts has not been infringed in relation to experience or average price.










3.


In the further alternative, the applicant alleges that the principle of proportionality has been breached in a number of respects.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China ( OJ L 117, 11.5.2010 )
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, originating product, vehicle parts








L_2010237EN.01003001.xml










8.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 237/30







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 117 of 11 May 2010
)

On page 69, recital 56:
for:


                  ‘Of the four sampled exporting groups in the PRC, individual examination should be granted to the following groups’,

read:


                  ‘Of the four sampled exporting groups in the PRC, individual treatment should be granted to the following groups’.
Case T-312/05: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Commission v Alexiadou (Arbitration clause — Contract concerning a project for the development of a technology for the production of waterproof leathers — Failure to perform the contract — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Default interest — Referral back to the General Court after annulment — Default proceedings)
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, contract, redemption, research expenditure (EU)








C_2010288EN.01002901.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/29






Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Commission v Alexiadou
(Case T-312/05) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Contract concerning a project for the development of a technology for the production of waterproof leathers - Failure to perform the contract - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Default interest - Referral back to the General Court after annulment - Default proceedings)
(2010/C 288/54)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Efrosyni Alexiadou (Saloniki, Greece) (represented by: C. Matellas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking an order for reimbursement of EUR 23 036,31 advanced by the Commission to the defendant under a contract concerning a project for developing a technology for the production of waterproof leathers (Contract G1ST-CT-2002-50227), together with default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders Efrosyni Alexiadou to repay the sum of EUR 23 036,31 to the European Commission, together with default interest:






—


at the rate of 5.25 % per annum from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005;










—


at the statutory annual rate applicable under Belgian law, with a ceiling of 5.25 % per annum, from 1 September 2005 to payment in full of the debt;














2.


Orders Efrosyni Alexiadou to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.
Case C-409/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim (Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Organisation of bets on sporting competitions subject to a public monopoly at Land level — Decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht finding the legislation for such a monopoly incompatible with the German Basic Law, but maintaining the legislation in force during a transitional period designed to allow it to be brought into conformity with the Basic Law — Principle of the primacy of Union law — Admissibility of, and possible conditions for, a transitional period of that type where the national legislation concerned also infringes Articles 43 EC and 49 EC)
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State monopoly, freedom to provide services, game of chance, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, sport








C_2010288EN.01000601.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/6






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim
(Case C-409/06) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Organisation of bets on sporting competitions subject to a public monopoly at Land level - Decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht finding the legislation for such a monopoly incompatible with the German Basic Law, but maintaining the legislation in force during a transitional period designed to allow it to be brought into conformity with the Basic Law - Principle of the primacy of Union law - Admissibility of, and possible conditions for, a transitional period of that type where the national legislation concerned also infringes Articles 43 EC and 49 EC)
(2010/C 288/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Winner Wetten GmbH

Defendant: Mayor of Bergheim

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Interpretation of Arts 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation, making the business of collecting, accepting, registering and transmitting bets subject to obtaining authorisation, declared unconstitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Direct effect and primacy of Community law — Temporal limitation on the effects of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

By reason of the primacy of directly-applicable Union law, national legislation concerning a public monopoly on bets on sporting competitions which, according to the findings of a national court, comprises restrictions that are incompatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, because those restrictions do not contribute to limiting betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner, cannot continue to apply during a transitional period.


(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
Protection of animals used for scientific purposes ***II European Parliament legislative resolution of 8 September 2010 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (06106/1/2010 – C7-0147/2010 – 2008/0211(COD))
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, European Parliament
Subjects: European convention, animal experimentation, protection of animals








CE2011308EN.01011501.xml










20.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 308/115





Wednesday 8 September 2010Protection of animals used for scientific purposes ***II
P7_TA(2010)0308
European Parliament legislative resolution of 8 September 2010 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (06106/1/2010 – C7-0147/2010 – 2008/0211(COD))
2011/C 308 E/27
(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,
having regard to the Council position at first reading (06106/1/2010 – C7-0147/2010),
having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0543),
having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0391/2008),
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(7) and Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
having regard to its position at first reading (1),
having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 May 2009 (2),
having regard to Rules 70 and 72 of its Rules of Procedure,
having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0230/2010),






1.


Approves the Council position;










2.


Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;










3.


Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










4.


Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;










5.


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






(1)  OJ C 212 E, 5.8.2010, p. 170.

(2)  OJ C 277, 17.11.2009, p. 51.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5747 — Iberia/British Airways)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, banking, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, merger control








C_2010241EN.01000102.xml










8.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 241/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5747 — Iberia/British Airways)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 241/02
On 14 July 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5747. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-541/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Quinta do Portal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-369/09 Quinta do Portal v OHIM
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), fortified wine, trade-mark law








C_2011038EN.01000402.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/4





Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Quinta do Portal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-369/09 Quinta do Portal v OHIM

(Case C-541/10 P)
2011/C 38/05
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Quinta do Portal (represented by Bolota Belchior, advogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vallegre — Vinhos do Porto, SA

Form of order sought







—


Setting aside of the judgment of the General Court in its entirety;










—


a declaration allowing in full the appellant’s claims at first instance, namely, annulment of the decision of 18 June 2009 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (‘the Office’), which dismissed the appeal brought against the decision of the Community trade marks Cancellation Division which, in its turn, declared invalid the Community trade mark No 004009908 PORTO ALEGRE registered on 16 May 2006, published in Community Trade Marks Bulletin No 30/2005 of 25 July 2005 (Case R 1012/2008-1);










—


an order that the respondent should pay the costs at both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The words ‘Porto Alegre’ and ‘Vista Alegre’ are dissimilar conceptually, as regards the dominant element of the mark as a whole, and dissimilar graphically and phonetically, for the two words of the two trade marks are different.
The decisive factor in the distinctiveness of the Community trade mark applied for is the combination of the words ‘Porto’ and ‘Alegre’, which form, together, a single logical and conceptual unit.
The word ‘Alegre’ does not form the dominant element of the Community trade mark. Having regard to the effect of that issue in evaluating the similarity of signs, it must be noted that that is not so in the present case.
The judgment under appeal misinterpreted Article 8(1)(b) of both Regulation No 40/94 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) (the wording is the same in the two regulations), so infringing them.
The judgment under appeal failed to take into account those arguments raised in the action before the General Court, for it did not assess them.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-575/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — 4care v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (Acumed) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Acumed — Earlier national word mark AQUAMED ACTIVE — 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))
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01003701.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/37






Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — 4care v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (Acumed)
(Case T-575/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Acumed - Earlier national word mark AQUAMED ACTIVE - 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))
(2010/C 288/70)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: 4care AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: S. Redeker and M. Diesbach, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2008 (Case R 1636/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Diafarm, SA and 4care AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders 4care AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
Case T-152/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Kido v OHIM — Amberes (SCORPIONEXO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SCORPIONEXO — Earlier national figurative mark ESCORPION — Relative ground for refusal — 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: 2010-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cycle and motorcycle industry, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01003401.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/34






Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Kido v OHIM — Amberes (SCORPIONEXO)
(Case T-152/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SCORPIONEXO - Earlier national figurative mark ESCORPION - Relative ground for refusal - 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 288/64)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kido Industrial Ltd (Yangcheon-gu, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Mall, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Amberes, SA (Igualada, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2008 (Case R287/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Amberes, SA and Kido Industrial Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Kido Industrial Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.