do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-81/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, advertising, food supplement, health care, pharmaceutical product, special chemicals, trade-mark law








C_2011139EN.01001401.xml










7.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/14





Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
(Case C-81/11 P)
2011/C 139/25
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


admit the appeal filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.










—


annul the decision of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in case T-363/09










—


order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court violated its right to due process of law by failing to grant a time period for the appellant to reply to the submissions of OHIM.
It is also submitted that the General Court did not deal with the arguments advanced by the holder of the trademark concerning the likelihood of confusion.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011056EN.01000901.xml










22.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 February 2011
2011/C 56/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3668




JPY


Japanese yen


113,68




DKK


Danish krone


7,4553




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84250




SEK


Swedish krona


8,7620




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2960




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7690




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,458




HUF


Hungarian forint


271,01




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7041




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9277




RON


Romanian leu


4,2328




TRY


Turkish lira


2,1609




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3521




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3444




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6389




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7899




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7436




KRW


South Korean won


1 531,28




ZAR


South African rand


9,7702




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,9760




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4085




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 095,94




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1510




PHP


Philippine peso


59,328




RUB


Russian rouble


39,8620




THB


Thai baht


41,728




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2751




MXN


Mexican peso


16,4539




INR


Indian rupee


61,4890






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6121 — GEA Dutch Holdings BV/CFS Holdings BV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, food production, foodstuff, merger control








C_2011056EN.01001201.xml










22.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6121 — GEA Dutch Holdings BV/CFS Holdings BV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 56/08






1.


On 14 February 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking GEA Dutch Holding BV (‘GEA’, The Netherlands) controlled by GEA Group AG (Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking CFS Holdings BV (‘CFS’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for GEA: development and manufacturing of process technology and components, including machinery and equipment for the processing of food,










—


for CFS: manufacturing of food processing equipment.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6121 — GEA Dutch Holdings BV/CFS Holdings BV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Commission communication on the body authorised to issue certificates of origin under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Australia, certificate of origin, originating product, sugar, tariff quota








C_2011056EN.01000701.xml










22.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/7





Commission communication on the body authorised to issue certificates of origin under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009
2011/C 56/03
On the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009, published in 
Official Journal of the European Union L 254 of 26 September 2009, an import tariff quota has been opened for sugar originating in Australia.
Under Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009, the release for free circulation of the goods imported under that quota is conditional upon presentation of a certificate of origin.
The following authority is authorised to issue certificates of origin under the Regulation:





Chamber of Commerce Et.




Industry Queensland




Industry House




375 Wicham Terrace




Brisbane Q 4000




AUSTRALIA




Tel. +07 3842 2244




Fax +07 3832 3195




E-mail: info@cciq.com.au
Case C-78/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA) and Others
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: arrangement of working time, rest period, trade union rights, working time








C_2011152EN.01001002.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA) and Others
(Case C-78/11)
2011/C 152/18
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

Defendants: Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (FETICO), Federación Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federación del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO

Question referred

Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of national legislation which does not permit interruption of a period of leave so that the full period — or the remaining period — can be taken at a later time if a worker is temporarily incapacitated when he is on leave?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Case T-102/11: Action brought on 22 February 2011 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE)
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, banking system, trade-mark law








C_2011130EN.01001502.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/15





Action brought on 22 February 2011 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE)
(Case T-102/11)
2011/C 130/27
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2010 in case R 1125/2010-2;










—


In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2010 in case R 1125/2010-2, and rule that the appeal is justified;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IP ZONE’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal found that the trade mark lacks the necessary distinctiveness and is descriptive with respect to the services in question.
Case C-80/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Mahagében Kft v Nemzeti Adó és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, VAT, invoicing, supplies contract, tax evasion, tax on consumption, tax relief








C_2011179EN.01000701.xml










18.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Mahagében Kft v Nemzeti Adó és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-80/11)
2011/C 179/10
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Biróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mahagében Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who fulfils the material conditions for the right to deduct VAT in accordance with the provisions of that Directive may be deprived of his right to deduct by national legislation or practice that prohibits deductions in respect of VAT paid when a product is bought, where the invoice is the only valid document that confirms that the product was sold, and the taxable person is not in possession of any document from the issuer of the invoice which certifies that it was in possession of the product, and could have supplied it or satisfied its obligations as regards declaration? May a Member State require the recipient of the invoice to be in possession of a document proving that it is in possession of the product, or that the product was supplied or delivered to it, to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion under Article 273 of the Directive?










2.


Is the concept of due diligence set out in Paragraph 44(5) of the Hungarian Law on VAT compatible with the principles of neutrality and proportionality already upheld several times by the European Court of Justice in connection with the application of the Directive if, in applying that concept, the tax authority and established case-law require the recipient of the invoice to ascertain whether the issuer of the invoice is a taxable person, whether it has entered goods purchased in its records and is in possession of the purchase invoice, and whether it has satisfied its obligations as to declaration and payment of VAT ?










3.


Must Articles 167 and 178(a) of the Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation or practice that requires a taxable person receiving an invoice to verify compliance with the law by the company issuing the invoice in order for the former to assert his right to deduct?






(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 C-77/11: Action brought on 22 February 2011 — Council of the European Union v European Parliament
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: adoption of the budget, amending budget, draft budget (EU)








C_2011120EN.01000701.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/7





Action brought on 22 February 2011 — Council of the European Union v European Parliament
(Case C-77/11)
2011/C 120/12
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


annul the act of the President of the Parliament of 14 December 2010 declaring the European Union budget for the financial year 2011 definitively adopted, in so far as that measure is combined with the act establishing the budget,










—


alternatively, and in so far as it is a separate act from the above, annul the act of the President of the Parliament of that date purporting to adopt the European Union budget for 2011 and give it binding force as against the institutions and the Member States,










—


in the alternative, annul the act of the President of the European Parliament declaring the European Union budget for 2011 definitively adopted, in so far as that declaration was made without the 2010 budget procedure (2011 budget) having been completed,










—


consider the effects of the 2011 budget as definitive until the budget is established by a legislative act in accordance with the Treaties,










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action the Council submits that, following the introduction of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on 1 December 2009, the annual budget of the European Union and any amending budgets must henceforth be established by a joint legislative act of the two institutions which produce them, namely the European Parliament and the Council. That act must be signed by the presidents of those two institutions in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 297(1) TFEU.
The Council submits accordingly that the act establishing the 2011 annual budget — whether that act is combined with the declaration of the President of the European Parliament that the 2011 budget is definitively adopted or whether it is regarded as a separate act — is unlawful in so far as it consists in a non-typical and non-legislative act made and signed by the President of the European Parliament alone, in breach of Article 314 TFEU and Articles 288 and 289(2) and the first and third paragraphs of Article 296 of the Treaty and Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union. In the alternative, the Council submits that that act is unlawful on the ground of breach of essential procedural requirements and breach of Article 314(9) TFEU.
Finally, the Council asks the Court to maintain, if need be, the effects of the budget as published in the Official Journal of the European Union until the date on which that budget is established in accordance with those articles of the Treaty.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6130 — AXA IMPEE/NOVACAP) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, investment, merger control








C_2011056EN.01001101.xml










22.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6130 — AXA IMPEE/NOVACAP)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 56/07






1.


On 14 February 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the venture capital mutual fund AXA LBO Fund IV, which is managed by the company AXA Investment Managers Private Equity Europe SA (‘AXA IMPEE’, France), a member of the AXA group (France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the NOVACAP group (‘NOVACAP’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for the undertaking AXA IMPEE: investment fund,










—


for the undertaking NOVACAP: manufacturing and sale of chemicals for industry.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6130 — AXA IMPEE/NOVACAP, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-79/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy), lodged on 22 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others
Date: 2011-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal procedure, help for victims, indemnification








C_2011120EN.01000702.xml










16.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy), lodged on 22 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others
(Case C-79/11)
2011/C 120/13
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings


Accused: Maurizio Giovanardi, Andrea Lastini, Vito Pignionica, Massimiliano Pempori, Filippo Ricci, Gezim Lakja, Elettrifer Srl, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA)

Other parties: Franca Giunti, Laura Marrai, Francesca Marrai, Stefania Marrai, Giovanni Marrai, Alfio Bardelli, Andrea Tomberli

Question referred

Are the provisions of Italian law on the administrative liability of legal bodies/persons set out in Legislative Decree No 231/2001, as subsequently amended, compatible with the provisions of Community law on the protection, in criminal proceedings, of victims of crime, in particular with Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (1) and with the provisions of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, (2) insofar as those national provisions do not ‘expressly’ provide that those legal bodies/persons may be held liable, in criminal proceedings, for the damage caused to the victims of crime?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15.