do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-161/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Ilink Kommunikationssysteme v OHIM (ilink) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ilink — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), infringement of EU law, trade-mark law








C_2011046EN.01001102.xml










12.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/11





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Ilink Kommunikationssysteme v OHIM (ilink)
(Case T-161/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ilink - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 46/20
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ilink Kommunikationssysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B Schütze, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2009 (Case R 1849/2007-4), relating to registration of the word sign ‘ilink’ as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ilink Kommunikationssysteme GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 153 of 4.7.2009.
Case C-596/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, equidae, tax on consumption, tax relief








C_2011072EN.01001101.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/11





Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-596/10)
2011/C 72/18
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, in applying a reduced rate of VAT to transactions relating to equidae and in particular to horses, where they are not as a matter of course intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs or in agricultural production, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99 of the VAT Directive (1) and of Annex III thereto;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises two complaints in support of its action relating to the non-compliance with the VAT Directive by the national legislation that, firstly, makes transactions that do not fall within the exceptions set out in Annex III to that directive subject to a reduced rate of 5,5 % and, secondly, makes some transactions subject to a reduced rate of 2,1 %.
In its first complaint, the applicant points out that, apart from the fact that it applies a reduced rate of VAT of 5,5 % to transactions concerning live equidae without differentiating as to their use, the French legislation lays down yet more provisions which are not in accordance with the VAT Directive and, in particular, with paragraphs (1) and (11) of Annex III to that directive.
In its second complaint, the Commission criticises the defendant’s administrative practice of applying a rate of 2,1 % to sales to persons not subject to VAT of live animals not intended for use as meat and meat products, and in particular horses for racing, competitions, pleasure and riding.


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)
Case T-286/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Fidelio v OHIM (Hallux) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Hallux — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), footwear industry, trade-mark law








C_2011046EN.01000901.xml










12.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/9





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Fidelio v OHIM (Hallux)
(Case T-286/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Hallux - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 46/13
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fidelio KG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 632/2007-4) relating to registration of the word sign ‘Hallux’as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fidelio KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
Case C-597/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, flood, public safety








C_2011055EN.01002001.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/20





Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-597/10)
2011/C 55/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and I. Hadjiyannis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 (1) on the assessment and management of flood risks, which aims to reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2007/60/EC expired on 25 November 2009. On the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet taken all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, it had not notified the Commission thereof.


(1)  Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ 2007 L 288, p. 27).
Case T-364/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Lebedef v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Annual leave — Half-time secondment for union representation — Unauthorised absence — Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, action by staff, paid leave, regulations for civil servants, rights of civil servants, sick leave, trade union freedom








C_2011038EN.01001403.xml










5.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/14





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
(Case T-364/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Annual leave - Half-time secondment for union representation - Unauthorised absence - Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)
2011/C 38/25
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, with the request that the judgment be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the appeal;










2.


orders Mr Giorgio Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 282 of 21.11.2009.
Case C-480/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA v European Commission, Electrabel SA (Appeal — State aid — Aid declared compatible with the common market — Condition requiring prior repayment by the beneficiary of earlier aid declared unlawful — Concept of ‘economic unit’ — Joint control by two separate parent companies — Distortion of the pleas in law relied on in the application — Errors and defective reasoning)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, gas industry, judicial proceedings, redemption, restriction on competition, suspension of aid, urban infrastructure








C_2011055EN.01001501.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/15





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA v European Commission, Electrabel SA
(Case C-480/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid declared compatible with the common market - Condition requiring prior repayment by the beneficiary of earlier aid declared unlawful - Concept of ‘economic unit’ - Joint control by two separate parent companies - Distortion of the pleas in law relied on in the application - Errors and defective reasoning)
2011/C 55/26
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent), Electrabel SA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 September 2009 in Case T 303/05 ACEAElectrabel Produzione SpA v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/598/EC of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 2006 L 244).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the appeal;










2.


orders AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


orders Electrabel SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EU homelessness strategy Declaration of the European Parliament of 16 December 2010 on an EU homelessness strategy
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: homelessness, human rights, road services department, social integration








CE2012169EN.01013901.xml










15.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 169/139





Thursday 16 December 2010EU homelessness strategy
P7_TA(2010)0499
Declaration of the European Parliament of 16 December 2010 on an EU homelessness strategy
2012/C 169 E/20

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to its declaration of 22 April 2008 on ending street homelessness (1),










—


having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas homelessness continues to affect people in all EU Member States and is an unacceptable violation of fundamental human rights,










B.


whereas 2010 is the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion,










1.


Calls again on the Council to commit by the end of 2010 to ending street homelessness by 2015;










2.


Calls on the European Commission to develop an ambitious EU homelessness strategy and to support Member States in developing effective national strategies following the guidelines of the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion adopted in March 2010 and as part of the EU 2020;










3.


Calls on Eurostat to collect EU homelessness data;










4.


Supports the following priorities for action: no one sleeping rough; no one living in emergency accommodation for longer than the period of an ‘emergency’; no one living in transitional accommodation longer than is required for a successful move-on; no one leaving an institution without housing options; no young people becoming homeless as a result of the transition to independent living;










5.


Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories (2), to the Council, the Commission and the Parliaments of the Member States.






(1)  OJ C 259 E, 29.10.2009, p. 19.

(2)  The list of signatories is published in Annex 3 to the Minutes of 16 December 2010 (P7_PV(2010)12-16(ANN3)).
Case C-239/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (State aid — Aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany for the acquisition of land — Programme for land privatisation and restructuring of agriculture in the new Länder in Germany)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, agricultural holding, agricultural land, culture, interpretation of the law, livestock farming








C_2011055EN.01000702.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH
(Case C-239/09) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany for the acquisition of land - Programme for land privatisation and restructuring of agriculture in the new Länder in Germany)
2011/C 55/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Article 87 EC — State aids — Privatisation of land in the new German Länder — Purchase of that land at a price, established according to national provisions providing for the determination of the market value of the land based on regional criteria, which is lower than their market value — Compatibility of those national provisions with Article 87 EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 87 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law laying down calculation methods for determining the value of agricultural and forestry land, offered for sale by public authorities in the context of a privatisation plan, such as those laid down in Paragraph 5(1) of the Land Purchase Order (Flächenerwerbsverordnung) of 20 December 1995, to the extent that those methods provide for the updating of the prices, where prices for such land are rising sharply, so that the price actually paid by the purchaser reflects, in so far as is possible, the market value of that land.


(1)  OJ C 220, 12.09.2009
Joined cases T-345/08 and T-357/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM — Allergan (BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL — Earlier national figurative and word marks BOTOX — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, cosmetics industry, product designation, trade-mark law








C_2011046EN.01001001.xml










12.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/10





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM — Allergan (BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL)
(Joined cases T-345/08 and T-357/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL - Earlier national figurative and word marks BOTOX - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
2011/C 46/16
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Helena Rubinstein SNC (Paris, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Pagenberg, lawyers) (Case T-345/08); and L’Oréal SA (Paris) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Pagenberg, lawyers) (Case T-357/08)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against, in Case T-345/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2008 (Case R 863/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and Helena Rubinstein SNC, and, in Case T-357/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2008 (Case R 865/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and L’Oréal SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Helena Rubinstein SNC to pay the costs in Case T-345/08;










3.


Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs in Case T-357/08.






(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
Case C-233/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/44/EC — Prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector — Procedural rules and evaluation criteria)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, financial instrument, financial market, securities








C_2011055EN.01001602.xml










19.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/16





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-233/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/44/EC - Prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector - Procedural rules and evaluation criteria)
2011/C 55/29
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhis and H. te Winkel, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 17.07.2010.
Case T-513/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Seated figure) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a seated figure — Earlier Community figurative mark — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2010-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011046EN.01001301.xml










12.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/13





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Seated figure)
(Case T-513/09) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a seated figure - Earlier Community figurative mark - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
2011/C 46/25
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Herbert Neuman (Tarifa, Spain) and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel, on the one hand, and José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA., and orders Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.