do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-151/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, aircraft, indemnification, traveller








C_2011204EN.01001203.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel
(Case C-151/11)
2011/C 204/23
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant: Jürgen Dörschel

Questions referred







1.


Does a passenger have a right to payment of compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where the flight, following its departure according to schedule, is discontinued and the aircraft, before arriving at the airport of destination, returns to the airport of departure and subsequently takes off again with a delay which is relevant for payment of compensation?










2.


Is there a discontinuance in the case where, after the aircraft doors have been closed, the journey is not continued? From what point is there a discontinuance of the start, rather than a delayed start?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 303/2011 of 28 March 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2011081EN.01001001.xml










29.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 81/10








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 303/2011
of 28 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 29 March 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 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 


JO 


71,2 




MA 


55,9 




TN 


115,9 




TR 


84,3 




ZZ 


81,8 




0707 00 05 


EG 


170,1 




TR 


142,8 




ZZ 


156,5 




0709 90 70 


MA 


34,5 




TR 


112,1 




ZA 


49,8 




ZZ 


65,5 




0805 10 20 


EG 


52,4 




IL 


78,3 




MA 


53,2 




TN 


51,7 




TR 


73,9 




ZZ 


61,9 




0805 50 10 


TR 


52,9 




ZZ 


52,9 




0808 10 80 


AR 


84,5 




BR 


79,3 




CA 


106,9 




CL 


97,6 




CN 


93,3 




MK 


47,7 




US 


138,4 




UY 


64,5 




ZA 


77,8 




ZZ 


87,8 




0808 20 50 


AR 


89,2 




CL 


74,8 




CN 


59,4 




US 


79,9 




ZA 


102,7 




ZZ 


81,2 






(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 C-153/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2011 — OOD Klub v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, VAT, intermediate goods, purchase, real property, tax relief








C_2011186EN.01001202.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2011 — OOD Klub v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)
(Case C-153/11)
2011/C 186/21
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OOD Klub

Defendant: Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ at the Central Office of the National Revenue Agency (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 168(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that — once a taxable person has exercised his option and allocated property constituting capital goods to his business assets — it must be presumed (that is to say assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary), that these goods are used for the purposes of taxable transactions effected by the taxable person?










2.


Is Article 168(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the right of deduction on the purchase of an immovable property which is allocated to the business assets of a taxable person arises immediately in the tax period in which the tax became due, regardless of the fact that the property cannot be used in view of the absence of approval for its commissioning as required by law?










3.


Is an administrative practice such as that of the Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite, according to which the right of deduction claimed by persons liable for value added tax on capital goods purchased by them is refused on the grounds that those goods are used for the private purposes of the owners of the companies, without value added tax being imposed on this use, consistent with the directive?










4.


In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings does the company, namely the applicant, have a right of deduction on the purchase of an immovable property, namely a maisonette in Sofia?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1
Case T-183/11: Action brought on 28 March 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Jacinto (My Little Bear)
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011145EN.01003701.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/37





Action brought on 28 March 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Jacinto (My Little Bear)
(Case T-183/11)
2011/C 145/62
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S.Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registration No 384674 on 23 March 2011;










—


In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;










—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2011 in case R 494/2010-1; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘My Little Bear’, in brown, black, white and red, for goods in classes 12, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No W00962622

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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 384674 of the figurative mark ‘Little Bear’, for goods in class 18

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the application for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed mark, due to the fact that the verbal elements would be the dominant elements in the complex marks.
Case T-203/11: Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, carrier, indemnification








C_2011186EN.01002701.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/27





Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission
(Case T-203/11)
2011/C 186/51
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions (Beuvillers, France) (represented by: É. Deshoulières, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission jointly to compensate SARL Tarnsports Schiocchet — Excursions for the loss it has suffered, amounting to EUR 8 372 483;










—


Rule that the sums thus awarded are to bear interest at the statutory rate to run from notification of the preliminary claim for compensation to the European Commission;










—


Order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, on the basis of Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard by a court and, in particular, of the obligation of the bodies of the European Union to make it possible to obtain an effective remedy in the event of infringement of rights afforded to individuals by European Union law. The applicant points to the lack, firstly, of sanctions on Member States and transporters unwilling to comply with the authorisation procedure instituted by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 and, secondly, of any system of compensation for transporters who do undergo that authorisation procedure.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 94 TFEU to 96 TFEU in that the Commission was required to ensure proper application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, (1) efficiently to apprehend operators which had not undergone the authorisation procedure laid down in that regulation and to put an end to the discrimination caused by application of the regulation. The applicant refers to the fact that necessary measures were not taken by the Commission with regard to implementing the regulation in question despite a number of complaints made by the applicant, due to which it is shown that the Commission was aware of the situation. The defendant’s failure to act, when effectively it was aware of the situation adversely affecting the applicant, constitutes a serious and manifest failure to fulfil obligations leading to a sufficiently serious infringement of Articles 94 TFEU to 96 TFEU.






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).
Case C-149/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Leno Merken v Hagelkruis Beheer B.V.
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Netherlands, common market, frontier, trade-mark law








C_2011179EN.01001002.xml










18.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Leno Merken v Hagelkruis Beheer B.V.
(Case C-149/11)
2011/C 179/18
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te‘s-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Leno Merken

Defendant: Hagelkruis Beheer B.V.

Question referred







1.


Must Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that use of a Community trade mark within the borders of a single Member State is sufficient to constitute genuine use of that trade mark, provided that, had it been a national trade mark, such use would have been regarded as genuine use in that Member State (cf. Joint Statement No 10 regarding Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (2) of 20 December 1993 and the Opposition Guidelines of the OHIM)?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the negative, can the use of a Community trade mark within a single Member State as described above never be regarded as genuine use in the Community as referred to in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009?










3.


If the use of a Community trade mark within a single Member State can never be regarded as genuine use in the Community, what requirements must be laid down — in addition to the other factors — in respect of the territorial scope of the use of a Community trade mark when assessing genuine use in the Community?










4.


Alternatively — contrary to what has been stated above — must Article 15 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of genuine use in the Community should be done wholly in the abstract, without reference to the borders of the territory of the individual Member States (and that, for example, market share (product markets/geographic markets) should be taken as the point of reference))?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, 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-418/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011 — Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Stabilator sp. z o.o. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Opposition proceedings — Earlier mark STABILAT — Figurative sign ‘stabilator’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Absence of similarity of the goods and services)
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011211EN.01000802.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/8





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011 — Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Stabilator sp. z o.o.
(Case C-418/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Earlier mark STABILAT - Figurative sign ‘stabilator’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity of the goods and services)
2011/C 211/14
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Zinnecker and S. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Stabilator sp. z o.o. (represented by M. Kacprzak, radca prawny)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark STABILAT in respect of goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008, rejecting its opposition against registration of the figurative Community trade mark stabilator in respect of goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 — Incorrect assessment of the similarity between the services covered by the marks at issue — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Case T-182/11: Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Dacoury-Tabley v Council
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2011152EN.01002901.xml










21.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/29





Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Dacoury-Tabley v Council
(Case T-182/11)
2011/C 152/51
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philippe Henry Dacoury-Tabley (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Philippe Henry DACOURY-TABLEY, Council Regulation No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, published on 2 February 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, and Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, published on 2 February 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, have no factual basis,










—


accordingly,






—


annul Council Regulation No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 Janaury 2011










—


in the alternative, order that the name of Mr Philippe Henry DACOURY-TABLEY be removed from the list annexed to that Regulation and Decision.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply are stereotypical, with no mention of any precise factual evidence which allow the assessment of the relevance of that inclusion,










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as






—


the applicant is alleged to have refused recognise the authority of M. A. Ouattara, although he attempted to subject the BCEAO (Central Bank of West African States) for which he was governor, to his authority;










—


the applicant is alleged to have helped to fund the illegitimate administration of M. L. Gbagbo, although such support cannot be inferred from the operations of the BCEAO;










—


in addition, the applicant was no longer governor of the BCEAO at the time of adoption of the contested Regulation and Decision.