do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6090 — PZ Cussons/Wilmar Africa Investments/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agro-industrial cropping, consumer goods, economic concentration, exchange of information, industrial manufacturing, merger control








C_2011049EN.01000101.xml










16.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6090 — PZ Cussons/Wilmar Africa Investments/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 49/01
On 8 February 2011, 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 32011M6090. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States’ — COM(2011) 6 final — 2011/0007 (CNS)
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU employment policy, economic and social cohesion, labour flexibility, labour market, occupational safety, productivity, social security, vocational training, wage cost








C_2011107EN.01007701.xml










6.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/77





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States’
COM(2011) 6 final — 2011/0007 (CNS)
2011/C 107/20
On 26 January 2011 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 148 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States

COM(2011) 6 final — 2011/0007 (CNS).
Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion CESE 763/2010, adopted on 27 May 2010 (1), it decided, at its 469th plenary session of 16 and 17 February 2011 (meeting of 16 February), by 119 votes to none with three abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 16 February 2011.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON




(1)  EESC opinion on Employment policy guidelines, OJ C 21, p. 66 of 21.1.2011.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors’ (Codification) — COM(2010) 746 final — 2010/0358 (COD)
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agricultural vehicle, codification of EU law, marketing standard, safety standard, technical standard, tractor, vehicle parts








C_2011107EN.01007601.xml










6.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/76





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors’ (Codification)
COM(2010) 746 final — 2010/0358 (COD)
2011/C 107/19
On 17 January 2011, the Council and, on 16 December 2010, the European Parliament, decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the operating space, access to the driving position and the doors and windows of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors

COM(2010) 746 final — 2010/0358 (COD).
Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 469th plenary session of 16 and 17 February 2011 (meeting of 16 February), by 108 votes in favour, with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 16 February 2011.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON
Special Report No 12/2010 ‘EU Development Assistance for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia’
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Asia, EU aid, EU programme, education, sub-Saharan Africa








C_2011049EN.01001401.xml










16.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/14





Special Report No 12/2010 ‘EU Development Assistance for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia’
2011/C 49/08
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2010 ‘EU Development Assistance for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://www.eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Communication and Reports Unit




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case C-67/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2011 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2010 in Case T-188/10, DTL Corporación S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, solar energy, trade-mark law








C_2011130EN.01001101.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/11





Appeal brought on 16 February 2011 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2010 in Case T-188/10, DTL Corporación S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-67/11 P)
2011/C 130/20
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: DTL Corporación, SL (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluza, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales, S.L.

Form of order sought

Annulment in its entirety of the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 in Case T-188/10.
Grant of the following forms of order sought at first instance:






1.


annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 in Case R 767/2009-2;










2.


replacement of that decision by another rejecting the opposition brought by Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales, S.L. against the Community trade figurative mark No 5153325 ‘SOLARIA’, permitting that Community trade mark to be registered for all the services applied for in Classes 37 and 42;










3.


order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings which oppose this action to pay the costs thereof.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Breach of procedure before the General Court which prejudices the interests of the applicant: the application to stay proceedings under Article 77(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court was totally ignored (Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union).










2.


Infringement of the law of the European Union by the General Court: the judgment infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) — now Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) — on the Community trade mark, by expressly stating:






(a)


that the word element of the Community trade mark the subject of the dispute is the dominant feature of the mark;










(b)


that that word element is not the dominant feature of the mark, which contradiction decisively influences the assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union).










(1)  Regulation of 20 December 1993, on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

(2)  Regulation of 24 March 2009 (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
Case C-68/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, air quality, dangerous substance, environmental cooperation, environmental policy, pollution control measures








C_2011145EN.01000801.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/8





Action brought on 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-68/11)
2011/C 145/10
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and S. Mortoni, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by exceeding for a number of consecutive years the limit values for PM10 particles in ambient air throughout Italian territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (now Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;










—


order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30, Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that concentrations of PM10 in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Section I of Annex III to that directive as from the dates specified therein. The relevant date in the present context is 1 January 2005.
The assessment made by the Commission in the annual reports for the years 2005 to 2007 revealed that the limit values for PM10 particles had been exceeded in a great number of urban zones and agglomerations. Moreover, the most recent data forwarded by Italy, which relate to the year 2009, indicate that the exceeding of daily and/or annual limit values has continued in 70 zones at least.
It follows that Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 in terms both of zones and of years.


(1)  OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.
Case T-89/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011113EN.01001702.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/17





Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)
(Case T-89/11)
2011/C 113/35
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vincci Hoteles S.A. (Alcobendas, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2010 in case R 641/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NANU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6218879

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5238704 of the word mark ‘NAMMU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 32 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition and consequently partly rejected the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 16, 21 and 35 and rejected the opposition for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled in part the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition for goods in classes 4, 16 and 21 and dismissed the appeal for the remainder and confirms the rejection of the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 21 and 35

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.
Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011 under certain quotas opened by the European Union for pigmeat products
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: import, import licence, pigmeat, tariff quota








C_2011049EN.01001201.xml










16.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/12





Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011 under certain quotas opened by the European Union for pigmeat products
2011/C 49/06
Commission Regulation (EC) No 442/2009 (1) opened tariff quotas for imports of pigmeat products. The import licence applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011 do not, for quotas 09.4038, 09.4170 and 09.4204, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (2), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 April to 30 June 2011; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.


(1)  OJ L 129, 28.5.2009, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.


ANNEX






Quota order number


Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011
(in kg)




09.4038


25 209 950




09.4170


3 541 500




09.4204


3 468 000
Case C-69/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium), lodged on 16 February 2011 — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, VAT, basis of tax assessment, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2011145EN.01000802.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium), lodged on 16 February 2011 — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat
(Case C-69/11)
2011/C 145/11
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Connoisseur Belgium BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Article 26 of the Wetboek van de BTW (the Belgian VAT Code) infringe Article 11.A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, (1) now incorporated in Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principle of the neutrality of VAT, if that provision is interpreted as meaning that VAT is due on costs or amounts which could contractually be charged to the other contracting party but which are not so charged?


(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-109/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURACE)
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011130EN.01001503.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/15





Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURACE)
(Case T-109/11)
2011/C 130/28
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Apollo Tyres AG (Baden, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd (Aurangabad, India)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2010 in case R 625/2010-1;










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENDURACE’, for goods in class 12 and services in classes 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 6419824

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5819149 of the figurative mark ‘ENDURANCE’ and device in colours, for goods in class 12

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the applicant’s appeal and partially allowed the opponents’ request submitted under Article 8(3) RPBoA (1), and as a result partially rejected the Community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion.


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96, of 5 February 1996, laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2082/2004, of 6 December 2004
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011049EN.01000501.xml










16.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 February 2011
2011/C 49/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3510




JPY


Japanese yen


113,21




DKK


Danish krone


7,4567




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83750




SEK


Swedish krona


8,7255




CHF


Swiss franc


1,3124




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8335




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,293




HUF


Hungarian forint


271,06




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7059




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9287




RON


Romanian leu


4,2518




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1504




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3503




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3317




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5282




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7925




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7290




KRW


South Korean won


1 514,24




ZAR


South African rand


9,8511




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9020




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4068




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 015,55




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1185




PHP


Philippine peso


58,919




RUB


Russian rouble


39,5770




THB


Thai baht


41,489




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2525




MXN


Mexican peso


16,2620




INR


Indian rupee


61,4980






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Procedure with associated committees and referral back to committee (interpretation of Rules 50 and 56) European Parliament decision of 16 February 2011 on the procedure with associated committees and referral back to committee in the event of rejection of a Commission proposal (interpretation of Rules 50 and 56 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2011-02-16
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EP Committee, interinstitutional relations (EU), powers of the institutions (EU), proposal (EU)








CE2012188EN.01006501.xml










28.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 188/65





Wednesday 16 February 2011Procedure with associated committees and referral back to committee (interpretation of Rules 50 and 56)
P7_TA(2011)0060
European Parliament decision of 16 February 2011 on the procedure with associated committees and referral back to committee in the event of rejection of a Commission proposal (interpretation of Rules 50 and 56 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure)
2012/C 188 E/15

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the letter of 15 February 2011 from the chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,










—


having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure,










1.


Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 50:






 


‘The Conference of Presidents’ decision to apply the procedure with associated committees applies at all stages of the procedure in question.










 


The rights attaching to the status of “committee responsible” are exercised by the lead committee. In exercising those rights, the lead committee must take due account of the prerogatives of the associated committee, and in particular must comply with the obligation to observe the principle of sincere cooperation as regards the timetable and respect the right of the associated committee to determine the amendments submitted in plenary which fall within its exclusive competence.










 


Should the lead committee disregard the prerogatives of the associated committee, decisions taken by the former remain valid but the latter may table amendments directly in plenary, within the limits of its exclusive competence.’;














2.


Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 56(3):






 


‘Following a referral back to committee pursuant to paragraph 3, the lead committee must, before taking a decision on the procedure to be followed, allow an associated committee, as provided for in Rule 50, to make choices as to the amendments which fall within its exclusive competence, and in particular to choose which amendments are to be resubmitted in plenary.










 


The time-limit laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 applies to the tabling in writing, or the oral presentation, of the report of the committee responsible. It does not apply to Parliament’s decision as to the appropriate juncture at which to continue consideration of the procedure in question.’;














3.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.