do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-479/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Evets Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark DANELECTRO — Figurative mark QWIK TUNE — Request for renewal of registration of the trade mark — Application for restitutio in integrum — Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting the request for renewal of registration of the trade mark)
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), administrative formalities, intellectual property, payment, tax system, trade-mark law








C_2010317EN.01001101.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/11





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Evets Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-479/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark DANELECTRO - Figurative mark QWIK TUNE - Request for renewal of registration of the trade mark - Application for restitutio in integrum - Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting the request for renewal of registration of the trade mark)
2010/C 317/20
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Evets Corp. (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08 Evets v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 5 November 2007 in Case R 603/2007-4 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division and declaring that the application for restitutio in integrum filed by the appellant with a view to having its rights regarding the renewal of the word mark ‘DANELECTRO’ re-established was deemed not to have been filed on account of lateness — Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting the request for renewal of the trade marks

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Evets Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 30.01.2010.
Case F-91/10: Action brought on 30 September 2010 — AK v Commission
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, indemnification, professional career








C_2011013EN.01004002.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/40





Action brought on 30 September 2010 — AK v Commission
(Case F-91/10)
()
2011/C 13/79
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AK (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for compensation for the loss suffered by reason of the failure to establish career development reports and to open an administrative inquiry to establish the facts of harassment and application for compensation for the damage suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision rejecting the application filed by the applicant on 24 November 2009 seeking compensation for the loss suffered by reason of the failure to establish his career development reports for 2001-2002, 2004, 2005 and 2008 and seeking the opening of an administrative inquiry to establish the facts of harassment;










—


Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, firstly, the sum of EUR 53 000 for the loss of the chance of promotion to grade A5 in promotion year 2003, in addition to the regularisation of his pension rights by payment of the corresponding contributions; secondly, the sum of EUR 400 per month (corresponding to 70 % of the difference between the invalidity allowance which she receives and that which she would have received had she been promoted in 2003); and, thirdly, the sum of EUR 35 000 for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the maintenance of her irregular administrative situation despite, inter alia, the judgments of 20 April 2005 and 6 October 2009 of the General Court and of 13 December 2007 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case F-20/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — de Luca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition — Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules — Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, appointment of staff, legal expenses, rights of civil servants








C_2010328EN.01006001.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/60





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — de Luca v Commission
(Case F-20/06) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition - Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules - Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
2010/C 328/96
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Patricia de Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February 2005 appointing the applicant, an official already graded at A*10 and a successful candidate in a competition for grades A5/A4, to a post as an administrator in the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security in so far as it alters her classification in grade from A*10 to A*9

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 31.
Case F-36/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Gudrun Schulze v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in step — Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 2, 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Discrimination on grounds of age — Equal pay for work of equal value — Principle of good administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, legal expenses, rights of civil servants, servant (EU)








C_2010328EN.01005802.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/58





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Gudrun Schulze v European Commission
(Case F-36/05) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in step - Article 32 of the Staff Regulations - Articles 2, 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Discrimination on grounds of age - Equal pay for work of equal value - Principle of good administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
2010/C 328/92
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gudrun Schulze (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers, and subsequently by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials) and, second, an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-207/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)
Case F-76/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Torijano Montero v Council (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candidates placed on a reserve list of a competition published prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules — Article 5 of the Staff Regulations — Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Principle of equality — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Proportionality)
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Council, action for annulment, appointment of staff, legal expenses, rights of civil servants








C_2010328EN.01005902.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/59





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Torijano Montero v Council
(Case F-76/05) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Candidates placed on a reserve list of a competition published prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules - Article 5 of the Staff Regulations - Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Principle of equality - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Proportionality)
2010/C 328/94
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Javier Torijano Montero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers, and subsequently, S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Council’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 23. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-302/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)
Case T-270/09: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — PVS v OHIM — MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst (medidata) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark medidata — Earlier national word mark MeDiTA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010317EN.01003101.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/31





Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — PVS v OHIM — MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst (medidata)
(Case T-270/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark medidata - Earlier national word mark MeDiTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 317/56
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: PVS — Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: F. Lindberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 1724/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MeDiTA Medizinische Kurierdienst- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH and PVS — Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Privatärztliche Verrechnungsstelle Rhein-Ruhr GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 220 of 12.9.2009.
Case F-43/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — van Heuckelom v European Police Office (Europol) (Civil Service — Staff Regulations of Europol — Article 29 — Advancement in step granted on the basis of staff reports — Plea of illegality of the decision establishing the policy for determining grades and steps — Respective powers of Europol’s Director and Management Board — Europol’s Director’s discretion — Limits)
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Europol, action for annulment, fine, operation of the Institutions








C_2010317EN.01004701.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/47





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — van Heuckelom v European Police Office (Europol)
(Case F-43/09) (1)

(Civil Service - Staff Regulations of Europol - Article 29 - Advancement in step granted on the basis of staff reports - Plea of illegality of the decision establishing the policy for determining grades and steps - Respective powers of Europol’s Director and Management Board - Europol’s Director’s discretion - Limits)
2010/C 317/82
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Carlo van Heuckelom (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D.Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, assisted initially by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers, then by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 14 July 2008 awarding the applicant a single step of classification in grade and of the decision of 19 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses Mr. van Heuckelom’s action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 180, 01/08/2009, p. 63.
Case T-534/08: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark GRANUflex — Previous company name and business name GRANUFLEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010317EN.01002802.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/28





Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex)
(Case T-534/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark GRANUflex - Previous company name and business name GRANUFLEX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 317/50
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Granuband BV (Krommenie, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ellens, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1277/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft and Granuband BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Granuband BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 44 of 21.2.2009.
Case C-132/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Jurisdiction of the Court — Statute of the European Schools — Establishment Agreement of 1962 — Conventions of 1957 and 1994 — Arbitration clause — Article 10 EC — Financing of the European Schools — Costs of furniture and teaching equipment)
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European school, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, education, educational institution, infringement of EU law, personal property








C_2010317EN.01000802.xml










20.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/8





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-132/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Jurisdiction of the Court - Statute of the European Schools - Establishment Agreement of 1962 - Conventions of 1957 and 1994 - Arbitration clause - Article 10 EC - Financing of the European Schools - Costs of furniture and teaching equipment)
2010/C 317/15
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have regard to the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Agreement signed on 12 October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European Schools and the Kingdom of Belgium (‘the Establishment Agreement’) and of Article 10 EC — Refusal by the Belgian authorities to pay the expenses for teaching equipment and materials for the European Schools — Justified on the basis of the internal legal order — Absence of a succession of established acts or declarations of the parties, within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, calling into question the Establishment Agreement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to rule on the action of the European Commission, brought on the basis of Article 226 EC, on the ground that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Establishment Agreement concluded on 12 October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European School and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 153, 04.07.2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5886 — Emerson Electric/Chloride Group)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, exchange of information, merger control








C_2010265EN.01000301.xml










30.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 265/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5886 — Emerson Electric/Chloride Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 265/02
On 24 August 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 32010M5886. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid, disclosure of information, water treatment








C_2010265EN.01000801.xml










30.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 265/8





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement
2010/C 265/07
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:







Date of adoption


:


10 March 2010




Case number


:


67806




Decision No


:


75/10/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Legal basis


:


Parliamentary proposition No 1 (2009-2010)




Objective


:


Increase the supply of renewable heat and energy. Contribute to energy saving




Form of aid


:


Grants




Budget


:


Approximately NOK 2,8 billion




Duration


:


Until end of 2010




Economic sectors


:


Energy, electricity




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Enova SF




Professor Brochsgt. 2




7030 Trondheim




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/