do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-38/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Vakalis v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pension — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the pension scheme of officials of the European Union — Calculation of the pensionable years — Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of the neutrality of the Euro)
Date: 2011-04-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, transfer of pension rights








C_2011160EN.01002802.xml










28.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/28





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Vakalis v Commission
(Case F-38/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Pension - Transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the pension scheme of officials of the European Union - Calculation of the pensionable years - Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of the neutrality of the Euro)
2011/C 160/43
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements determining the pension rights of the applicant on his transfer to the European Union scheme

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The application is dismissed partly as inadmissible and partly as unfounded.










2.


The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and half of the applicant’s costs.










3.


Mr Vakalis is to bear half of his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 54.
Case T-345/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PUERTA DE LABASTIDA — Earlier national word mark CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA — Earlier Community word marks CASTILLO LABASTIDA — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-04-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Spain, action for annulment (EU), agricultural product, marketing, trade-mark law








C_2011160EN.01002001.xml










28.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/20





Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA)
(Case T-345/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PUERTA DE LABASTIDA - Earlier national word mark CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA - Earlier Community word marks CASTILLO LABASTIDA - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2011/C 160/29
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL (Autol, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda (Labastida, Spain) (represented: initially by P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2009 (Case R 1021/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda and Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6173 — Ageas/Sabanci Holding/Aksigorta)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, economic concentration, exchange of information, insurance company, merger control








C_2011115EN.01000102.xml










13.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 115/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6173 — Ageas/Sabanci Holding/Aksigorta)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 115/02
On 4 April 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 32011M6173. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-174/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2011 — Finanzamt Steglitz v Ines Zimmermann
Date: 2011-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, health expenditure, tax exemption








C_2011226EN.01001001.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2011 — Finanzamt Steglitz v Ines Zimmermann
(Case C-174/11)
2011/C 226/17
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Finanzamt Steglitz

Respondent: Ines Zimmermann

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 13(A)(1)(g) and/or (2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) permit the national legislature to make the exemption of out-patient care services for those who are sick or in need of care dependent on the fact that, in the case of such organisations, ‘the costs of the care have been borne in at least two thirds of cases wholly or mainly by the statutory social security or social welfare authorities in the previous calendar year’ (Paragraph 4(16)(e) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz 1993)?










2.


Is it relevant to the answer to this question, having regard to the principle of the neutrality of VAT, that the national legislature treats the same services as exempt under different conditions where they are carried out by officially recognised voluntary welfare associations, and corporations, associations of persons and funds serving purposes of voluntary welfare which are affiliated as members of a welfare association (Paragraph 4(18) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz 1993)?






(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Case C-175/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 April 2011 — HID, BA v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
Date: 2011-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, appeal, nationality, right of asylum








C_2011204EN.01001401.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 April 2011 — HID, BA v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-175/11)
2011/C 204/26
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: HID, BA

Defendants: Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

Questions referred







1.


Is a Member State precluded by the provisions of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1st December, 2005 (1), or by general principles of European Union Law from adopting administrative measures which require that a class of asylum applications defined on the basis of the nationality or country of origin of the asylum applicant be examined and determined according to an accelerated or prioritised procedure?










2.


Is Article 39 of the above Council Directive when read in conjunction with its Recital (27) and Article 267 TFEU to be interpreted to the effect that the effective remedy thereby required is provided for in national law when the function of review or appeal in respect of the first instance determination of applications is assigned by law to an appeal to the Tribunal established under Act of Parliament with competence to give binding decisions in favour of the asylum applicant on all matters of law and fact relevant to the application notwithstanding the existence of administrative or organisational arrangements which involve some or all of the following:






—


The retention by a government Minister of residual discretion to override a negative decision on an application;










—


The existence of organisational or administrative links between the bodies responsible for first instance determination and the determination of appeals;










—


The fact that the decision making members of the Tribunal are appointed by the Minister and serve on a part-time basis for a period of three years and are remunerated on a case by case basis;










—


The retention by the Minister of powers to give directions of the kind specified in ss. 12, 16(2B)(b) and 16(11) of the above Act?










(1)  OJ L 326, p. 13