do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-58/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — France Telecom España, S.A.
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: information network, interpretation of the law, mobile phone, public law, telecommunications industry








C_2011139EN.01001302.xml










7.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — France Telecom España, S.A.
(Case C-58/11)
2011/C 139/24
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: France Telecom España, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services?










2.


In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned?










3.


Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect?






(1)  OJ L 108, p. 21
Case F-8/11: Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Nieminen v Council
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), promotion, rights of civil servants








C_2011095EN.01001401.xml










26.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/14





Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Nieminen v Council
(Case F-8/11)
2011/C 95/22
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Risto Nieminen (Kraainen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 under the 2010 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to promote him to Grade AD 12 under the 2010 promotion procedure;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 under the 2010 promotion procedure;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Case C-57/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A. v Ayuntamiento de Tudela
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: information network, interpretation of the law, mobile phone, public law, telecommunications industry








C_2011139EN.01001301.xml










7.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A. v Ayuntamiento de Tudela
(Case C-57/11)
2011/C 139/23
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vodafone España, S.A.

Respondent: Ayuntamiento de Tudela

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services?










2.


In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned?










3.


Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect?






(1)  OJ L 108, p. 21
Case F-10/11: Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Bojinova and Ghiba v Commission
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), rights of civil servants








C_2011095EN.01001402.xml










26.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/14





Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Bojinova and Ghiba v Commission
(Case F-10/11)
2011/C 95/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Silvia Bojinova (Brussels, Belgium) and Dorina Maria Ghiba (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the selection boards for competitions COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 and COM/INT/EU2/AST3 to reject the applicants’ candidatures on the ground that they did not meet the eligibility requirements stipulated in the notices of competition.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 11 May 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Silvia Bojinova’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 16 August 2010:










—


annul the decision of 10 Mau 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Dorina Maria Ghiba’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/AST3 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 4 August 2010;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case F-9/11: Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Sabbag Afota v Council
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion, rights of civil servants








C_2011152EN.01003302.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/33





Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Sabbag Afota v Council
(Case F-9/11)
2011/C 152/59
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Veronica Sabbag Afota (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the Council’s decision of 19 November 2010 rejecting the complaint against the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise;










—


to the necessary extent, annul the decision of the countersigning officer finalising the applicant’s report for the 2008-2009 reporting period and the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2010 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in the 2010 promotion exercise;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.
Case C-55/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A.
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: information network, interpretation of the law, mobile phone, telecommunications industry








C_2011139EN.01001204.xml










7.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A.
(Case C-55/11)
2011/C 139/22
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vodafone España, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services?










2.


In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned?










3.


Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect?






(1)  OJ L 108, p. 21
Case C-53/11 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, European integration, international trade








C_2011152EN.01001001.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/10





Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)

(Case C-53/11 P)
2011/C 152/17
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Nike International Ltd., Aurelio Muñoz Molina

Form of order sought







—


That the Court set aside the judgment under appeal.










—


That the Court deliver a fresh judgment on the substance, rejecting the appeal against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court.










—


That the Court order the applicant [before the General Court] to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

1.   Infringement of Rule 49 of the CTMIR
 (1)
and Article 59 of the CTMR
 (2)

The legal basis of the contested decision is Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR, in relation to the current Article 59 of the CTMR. However, the judgment under appeal makes no reference at any point either to Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR or to Article 59 of the CTMR, and makes no ruling on their applicability to the particular case. OHIM considers that that constitutes an error of law and a failure to state sufficient reasons.
2.   Infringement of the OHIM Guidelines and Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR

OHIM considers that its Guidelines are not applicable to the particular case. Nevertheless, the judgment under appeal states on two occasions that the Boards of Appeal are obliged to apply the OHIM Guidelines. That constitutes, in OHIM’s opinion, an error of law.


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1


(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1
Case C-312/10: Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Melanie Klintz
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, framework agreement, interpretation of the law, temporary employment, working time








C_2011173EN.01000902.xml










11.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 173/9





Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Melanie Klintz
(Case C-312/10) (1)

2011/C 173/19
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
Case C-54/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 7 February 2011 — JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch, J.P. Morgan Securities Limited v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law








C_2011120EN.01000402.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 7 February 2011 — JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch, J.P. Morgan Securities Limited v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
(Case C-54/11)
2011/C 120/07
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Frankfurt Branch, J.P. Morgan Securities Limited

Defendant: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

Questions referred







1.


When identifying, for the purposes of Articles 22(2) and 25 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1) (the ‘Brussels I Regulation’) what proceedings have as their object and with what they are principally concerned, should the national court only have regard to the claims made by the claimant(s) or should it also have regard to any defences or arguments raised by the defendants?










2.


If a party raises an issue in proceedings which falls within the subject matter of Article 22(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, such as an issue as to the validity of the decision of an organ of a company or other legal person, does it necessarily follow that that issue forms the object of the proceedings and that the proceedings are principally concerned with that issue if that issue may be potentially dispositive of the proceedings, irrespective of the nature and number of other issues raised in the proceedings and of whether all or some of those issues are also potentially dispositive?










3.


If the answer to question (2) above is negative, is the national court required, in order to identify the object of the proceedings and the issue with which the proceedings are principally concerned, to consider the proceedings overall and form an overall judgment of their object and what they are principally concerned with; and if not, what test should the national court apply to identify these matters?






(1)  OJ L 12, p. 1
Commission Regulation (EU) No 106/2011 of 7 February 2011 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Cerezas de la Montaña de Alicante (PGI)]
Date: 2011-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, designation of origin, labelling, location of production, mode of production, originating product, product designation, stone fruit








L_2011032EN.01000301.xml










8.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 32/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 106/2011
of 7 February 2011
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Cerezas de la Montaña de Alicante (PGI)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and having regard to Article 17(2) thereof, the Commission has examined Spain's application for approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Cerezas de la Montaña de Alicante’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been notified to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.


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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 February 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOŞ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ C 151, 10.6.2010, p. 23.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

SPAIN
Cerezas de la Montaña de Alicante (PGI)