do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-100/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by Helena Rubinstein, L'Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-345/08: Helena Rubinstein SNC, L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan, Inc.
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, European integration, administrative formalities, industrial property, international trade








C_2011145EN.01001201.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/12





Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by Helena Rubinstein, L'Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-345/08: Helena Rubinstein SNC, L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan, Inc.
(Case C-100/11 P)
2011/C 145/17
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Helena Rubinstein SNC, L'Oréal SA (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2010 in joined cases T-345/08 and T-357/08;










—


to dismiss the appeals filed by Allergan, Inc. against the decisions of the Office's Cancellation Division of 28 March 2007 in Case 1118 C (Helena Rubinstein SNC, BOTOLIST) and 4 April 2007 in Case 1120 C (L'Oréal SA, BOTOCYL);










—


to order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and before the General Court, as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office's Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:






 


That the General Court violated Article 52 (1)CTMR (1) in conjunction with Article 8 (5) CTMR in deciding that the Office was justified in finding that the earlier marks relied on by Allergan, Inc. had reputation and that the use of the contested registrations would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctiveness or the reputation of the earlier marks.










 


That the General Court violated Article 115 CTMR in conjunction with Article 1 Rule 38 (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2) of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, as amended (referred to hereafter as ‘Rule 38’ and ‘CTMIR’),in taking into account evidence which was not submitted in the language of the proceedings.










 


That the General Court violated Article 63 CTMR in reviewing and confirming the contested decisions according to erroneous legal standards.










 


That the General Court violated Articles 73 CTMR in deciding that the contested decisions were not vitiated by absence of sufficient reasons.






(1)  OJ L 011, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 303, p. 1
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6114 — 3i Group/Onemed)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competition, competition law, competition policy, economic concentration, merger control








C_2011067EN.01000601.xml










2.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6114 — 3i Group/Onemed)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 67/03
On 25 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 32011M6114. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 210/2011 of 2 March 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2011058EN.01003901.xml










3.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 58/39








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 210/2011
of 2 March 2011
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 March 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 March 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


IL 


122,2 




MA 


43,9 




TN 


113,1 




TR 


107,4 




ZZ 


96,7 




0707 00 05 


TR 


171,7 




ZZ 


171,7 




0709 90 70 


MA 


32,3 




TR 


127,5 




ZZ 


79,9 




0805 10 20 


EG 


54,7 




IL 


78,1 




MA 


53,8 




TN 


48,8 




TR 


66,6 




ZA 


37,9 




ZZ 


56,7 




0805 50 10 


MA 


45,9 




TR 


54,7 




ZZ 


50,3 




0808 10 80 


BR 


55,2 




CA 


126,3 




CL 


90,0 




CN 


91,2 




MK 


54,8 




US 


106,6 




ZZ 


87,4 




0808 20 50 


AR 


89,7 




CL 


110,5 




CN 


40,4 




US 


96,8 




ZA 


105,2 




ZZ 


88,5 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case T-123/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Legré v Council
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, action for annulment, change of political system, human rights, political rights, political system








C_2011130EN.01001804.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/18





Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Legré v Council
(Case T-123/11)
2011/C 130/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Thierry Legré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.
List of appointments made by the Council — November and December 2010 (social field)
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU Member State, Eurofound, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, advisory committee (EU), appointment of staff, free movement of workers








C_2011067EN.01000901.xml










2.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/9





List of appointments made by the Council
November and December 2010 (social field)
2011/C 67/05















Committee


End of term of office


Publication in OJ


Person replaced


Resignation/appointment


Member/alternate


Category


Country


Person appointed


Affiliation


Date of Council Decision




Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work


28.2.2013



L 45, 20.2.2010



Mr Dionis OÑA


Resignation


Member


Government


Spain


Mr Pedro J. LINARES


Secretario Confederal de Salud Laboral de CCOO


8.11.2010




Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work


28.2.2013



L 45, 20.2.2010



Mr Pedro J. LINARES


Resignation


Alternate


Government


Spain


Mr Javier TORRES


Secretario Confederal de Salud Laboral de CCOO


8.11.2010




Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality


31.5.2013



C 137, 27.5.2010



Ms Therese BUGEJA


Resignation


Member


Government


Malta


Ms Romina BARTOLO


National Commission for the Promotion of Equality


6.12.2010
Case T-118/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Attey v Council
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, action for annulment, change of political system, human rights, political rights, political system








C_2011130EN.01001701.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/17





Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Attey v Council
(Case T-118/11)
2011/C 130/30
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philipp Attey (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. –C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the restrictive measures taken against the applicant on the ground that he is obstructing the process of peace and reconciliation in Côte d’Ivoire and refuses to accept the result of the presidential election are based on the fact that the defendant wrongly considered that A. Ouattara had been elected president of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, whereas L. Gbagbo was declared elected president by the Constitutional Council.










2.


Second plea in law alleging a misuse of powers, in so far as the contested acts (i) pursue an aim other than that defined in Article 21 TEU, namely the advancement in the wider world of democracy and of the rule of law, L. Gbagbo having been proclaimed president of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire in a democratic manner and (ii) infringe the Charter of the United Nations, of which the European Union promotes the observance, the defendant having disregarded the principle of non-interference in a State's internal affairs.










3.


Third plea in law alleging an infringement of Article 215(3) TFEU, the contested acts not containing any legal safeguard.










4.


Fourth plea in law alleging an infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,






—


in that the rights of the defence of the applicant have been infringed, in so far as the defendant has not notified him of the evidence held against him, thereby not allowing the applicant duly to present his point of view in that regard, and










—


in that there has been an infringement of the right to property of the applicant to a disproportionate extent.
Case T-119/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Gbagbo v Council
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, action for annulment, change of political system, human rights, political rights, political system








C_2011130EN.01001702.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/17





Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Gbagbo v Council
(Case T-119/11)
2011/C 130/31
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Simone Gbagbo (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J. –C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.
Case T-122/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Yao N’Dré v Council
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, action for annulment, change of political system, human rights, political rights, political system








C_2011130EN.01001803.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/18





Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Yao N’Dré v Council
(Case T-122/11)
2011/C 130/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Paul Yao N’Dré (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.
Case C-108/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, VAT, basis of tax assessment, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2011145EN.01001302.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/13





Action brought on 2 March 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-108/11)
2011/C 145/19
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, C. Soulay, agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


Declare that by applying a VAT rate of 4.8% to supplies of greyhounds and horses not normally intended for the preparation of foodstuffs, to the hire of horses and to certain insemination services, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 96, 98 (in conjunction with Annex III) and Article 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;










—


order Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under article 96 of the VAT directive, the standard rate of VAT fixed by each Member State, subject to a minimum rate of 15 %, is applicable to all supplies of goods and services. A rate other than the standard rate may be applied only in so far as that is permitted by other provisions of the directive.
Article 98 provides that Member States may apply one or two reduced rates to the supplies of goods and services listed in Annex III to the directive. The supplies now in issue do not appear in Annex III.
The VAT directive also contains transitional provisions which permit Member States to continue to apply rates which derogate from the general rules on the structure and level of rates contained in the directive, if the relevant national provisions were in force on 1 January 1991.
Under article 113 of the VAT directive, where a Member State applied, on 1 January 1991, a reduced rate lower than the minimum laid down in article 99, it may apply to those goods and services one of the reduced rates provided for in article 98. However, since the rate applied by Ireland to the goods and services now in issue is lower than the minimum set out in article 99 of the VAT directive, article 113 can be of no avail.
Article 110 of the directive also applies to rates lower than the minimum laid down in article 99. It lays down a transitional arrangement for certain national measures adopted for clearly defined social reasons (i.e. to reduce the tax burden levied on consumption of goods and service which cover basic social needs) and for the benefit of the final consumer. The Commission submits that the supply of horses and greyhounds (other than for use in the preparation of foodstuffs), the hire of horses and insemination services cannot be deemed to be necessary in order to cover basic social needs. The Commission also submits that, since a large proportion of horses and greyhounds are intended for racing or breeding, the benefit of the measure cannot be considered as lying with the final consumer.


(1)  OJ L 347, p. 1
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 1,00 % on 1 March 2011 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate








C_2011067EN.01001001.xml










2.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/10





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
1,00 % on 1 March 2011
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 March 2011
2011/C 67/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3825




JPY


Japanese yen


113,39




DKK


Danish krone


7,4559




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84940




SEK


Swedish krona


8,7090




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2849




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7120




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,355




HUF


Hungarian forint


272,64




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7045




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9725




RON


Romanian leu


4,2120




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2214




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3572




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3408




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,7668




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8397




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7562




KRW


South Korean won


1 550,25




ZAR


South African rand


9,6111




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,0816




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4222




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 163,51




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1897




PHP


Philippine peso


60,026




RUB


Russian rouble


39,6750




THB


Thai baht


42,235




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2991




MXN


Mexican peso


16,7175




INR


Indian rupee


62,1430






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-115/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 2 March 2011 — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: family benefit, social legislation, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)








C_2011152EN.01001302.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 2 March 2011 — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie
(Case C-115/11)
2011/C 152/23
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Questions referred







1.


Does the fact that the personal scope of the first sentence of Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) covers ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’ — in respect of whom it is specified in Article 14(2)(b) that this is a person other than that referred to in Article 14(2)(a) — mean, in the case of an employed person who is employed in an employment relationship by a single employer,






(a)


that he is to be considered such a person if, on account of the nature of the employment, he performs work in different Member States at the same time (simultaneously), which also includes relatively short periods of time, and therefore frequently crosses State borders,




and also






(b)


that he is to be considered such a person too if in the context of a single employment relationship he is obliged to perform work permanently (normally) in several Member States, including the State in which he resides, or in several Member States other than that of his State of residence — either irrespective of the length of the consecutive periods in which he performs his obligations in the individual Member States and the length of the intermissions between them, or with a temporal limit?














2.


If the interpretation set out in (b) above is accepted, can Article 14(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied in a situation in which the obligation existing in the context of the employment relationship between the employee and a single employer to permanently perform work in several Member States covers performance of obligations in the Member State in which the employee resides even though such a situation — the performance of work in that very State — appears to be precluded at the time that the employment relationship is entered into and, in the event of the answer being in the negative, can Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied?






(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416