do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
EC-Japan agreement on cooperation in science and technology *** European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 November 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology (11363/2010 – C7-0183/2010 – 2009/0081(NLE))
Date: 2010-11-23
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: Japan, cooperation agreement (EU), ratification of an agreement, scientific cooperation, technical cooperation, technology








CE2012099EN.01014902.xml










3.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 99/149





Tuesday 23 November 2010EC-Japan agreement on cooperation in science and technology ***
P7_TA(2010)0414
European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 November 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology (11363/2010 – C7-0183/2010 – 2009/0081(NLE))
2012/C 99 E/37
(Consent)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (11363/2010),










—


having regard to the draft agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology (13753/2009),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), point (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0183/2010),










—


having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0302/2010),










1.


Consents to the conclusion of the agreement;










2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Japan.
Case C-544/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2010 — Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
Date: 2010-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, health policy, human nutrition, interpretation of the law, nutrition, public health, wine








C_2011072EN.01000202.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2010 — Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
(Case C-544/10)
2011/C 72/03
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsches Weintor eG

Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

Questions referred







1.


Does the reference to health in a claim within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 4(3) in conjunction with Article 2(2)(5) or Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 (2) of 9 February 2010 (‘the Regulation’), require a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect aimed at a sustained improvement of physical condition, or is a temporary effect, limited in particular to the time taken by the intake and digestion of the food, sufficient?










2.


If the assertion of a temporary beneficial effect may in itself be a reference to health:
In order for it to be assumed that such an effect is due to the absence or reduced content of a substance within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and recital 15 in the preamble to the Regulation, is it sufficient merely to assert in the claim that an effect generally derived from foods of this kind and frequently perceived as being adverse is limited in a particular case?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended on 13 December 2007, in conjunction with Article 15(1) (freedom to choose an occupation) and Article 16 (freedom to conduct a business) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as amended on 12 December 2007, (3) for a producer or marketer of wine to be prohibited, without exception, from making in its advertising a health claim of the kind at issue here, even if that claim is correct?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 404, p. 9.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.

(3)  OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1.
Commission Opinion of 23 November 2010 relating to the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Comurhex II conversion facility, located at Malvési in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
Date: 2010-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, health risk, radioactive effluent, radioactive pollution, radioactive waste, storage of waste, waste management








C_2010319EN.01000101.xml










24.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/1





COMMISSION OPINION
of 23 November 2010
relating to the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Comurhex II conversion facility, located at Malvési in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
(Only the French text is authentic)
2010/C 319/01
On 11 May 2010, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Comurhex II conversion facility at Malvési.
On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 8 June 2010 and provided by the French authorities on 29 July 2010, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:






1.


The distance between the facility and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Spain, is 80 km. The next nearest Member State is Italy at a distance of some 340 km.










2.


Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State.










3.


Solid radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before transfer to licensed treatment or disposal facilities located in France.










4.


In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents that may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.




In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the Comurhex II conversion facility located at Malvési in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 23 November 2010.


For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission
Case F-75/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Wenig v Commission (Public service — Officials — Request for assistance — Damage to reputation and breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence)
Date: 2010-11-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, European official, Internet site, action for annulment, defamation, indemnification, legal aid








C_2011030EN.01006101.xml










29.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/61





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Wenig v Commission
(Case F-75/09) (1)

(Public service - Officials - Request for assistance - Damage to reputation and breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence)
2011/C 30/116
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented initially by: G.-A Dal and D. Voillemot, lawyers, then by G.-A Dal, D. Voillemot, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

First, an application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 23 September 2008 for assistance from the European Commission and, second, an application for annulment of the European Commission’s rejection decision of 14 November 2008.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses Mr Wenig’s action;










2.


Orders Mr Wenig to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 267, 7/11/2009, p. 85.
Case C-545/10: Action brought on 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
Date: 2010-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, charges for use of infrastructure, rail transport, transport infrastructure, transport policy








C_2011038EN.01000501.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/5





Action brought on 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-545/10)
2011/C 38/06
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), 6(2), 7(3), 11 and 30(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification;










—


and under Article 10(7) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC (2) of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways;










—


order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Czech Republic has infringed Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC by laying down a maximum amount for charges for the use of infrastructure, which the infrastructure manager may not exceed. The infrastructure manager is required to carry out the imposition and levying of charges for the use of infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC. Member States are entitled only to lay down the framework of charges for the use of infrastructure.
The Czech Republic has infringed Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC by failing to adopt measures providing infrastructure managers with incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges.
The Czech Republic has infringed Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC by failing to ensure that charges for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities be set at the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.
The Czech Republic has infringed Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC by failing to introduce a performance scheme encouraging railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to minimise disruption and improve the performance of the railway network.
The Czech Republic has infringed Article 30(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC by incorrectly transposing it into its domestic legal system.
The Czech Republic has infringed Article 10(7) of Directive 91/440/EEC by failing to ensure the establishment of an entity in relation to the Czech Republic which could be regarded as an entity in accordance with Article 10(7) and fulfil the functions laid down by that provision.


(1)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25.
Case T-35/08: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2010 — Codorniu Napa v OHIM — Bodegas Ontañón (ASTESA NAPA VALLEY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark ARTESA NAPA VALLEY — Earlier figurative Community trade mark ARTESO and earlier national word mark LA ARTESA — 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: 2010-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law, wine








C_2011013EN.01002301.xml










15.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/23





Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2010 — Codorniu Napa v OHIM — Bodegas Ontañón (ASTESA NAPA VALLEY)
(Case T-35/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark ARTESA NAPA VALLEY - Earlier figurative Community trade mark ARTESO and earlier national word mark LA ARTESA - 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))
2011/C 13/42
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Codorniu Napa, Inc. (Napa, California, United States) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Curell Aguilà and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Ontañón, SA (Quel, La Rioja, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2007 (Case R 747/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Bodegas Ontañón, SA and Codorniu Napa, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Codorniu Napa, Inc., to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.