do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-225/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Royaume-Uni) (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, United States, VAT, armed forces, interpretation of the law, vessel








C_2011211EN.01001602.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Royaume-Uni) (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd
(Case C-225/11)
2011/C 211/31
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Royaume-Uni)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Able UK Ltd

Question referred







1.


Is Article 151(1)(c) of the Principal VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as exempting a supply in the UK of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships for the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration in either or both of the following circumstances:






(a)


where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member taking part in the common defence effort or to civilian staff accompanying them;










(b)


where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member stationed in or visiting the United Kingdom or to civilian staff accompanying such forces?










(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC. OJ L 347, p. 1
Case C-486/10: Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, award of contract, wastewater, water treatment








C_2011252EN.01002802.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/28





Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-486/10) (1)

2011/C 252/61
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Case T-338/10: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2011 — Commission v Tornasol Films
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, action for annulment, audiovisual production, contract, contractual liability








C_2011186EN.01003201.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/32





Order of the General Court of 13 May 2011 — Commission v Tornasol Films
(Case T-338/10) (1)

2011/C 186/58
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Case C-222/11 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09 Longevity Health Products, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party: Performing Science LLC
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), fine, trade-mark law








C_2011252EN.01001202.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/12





Appeal brought on 13 May 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09 Longevity Health Products, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party: Performing Science LLC
(Case C-222/11 P)
2011/C 252/24
Language of the case: German

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), Performing Science LLC

Form of order sought







—


Declare the appeal by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc admissible;










—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The restriction of the right to register a mark can be justified only in the public interest, for example in order to avoid a possible deception of certain trade circles. That can however be excluded in the present case because both experts and lay people are able to distinguish between the trade mark wording 5 HTP and the systematic designation for 5-hydroxy-tryptophan.
Experts such as chemists and veterinary surgeons are aware that even minor changes in chemical nomenclature terms or chemical formulae could lead to significant differences in substance structure. That circle of persons would therefore without further consideration continue to use the correct chemical designation, which is not the same as the trade mark.
‘Informed persons’, that is lay people and consumers interested in the products concerned, are also aware that the designations of different substances drawn from chemical nomenclature may differ only slightly, but that a minimal name difference is in fact associated with massive differences in the pharmacological, chemical or physical characteristics of those substances.
Lay persons who are not interested in the products concerned are in any case not able to recognise any connection between the trade mark name 5 HTP and the substance 5-hydroxy-tryptophan and therefore cannot also be misled thereby.
Case T-247/11: Action brought on 13 May 2011 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD)
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011238EN.01001803.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/18





Action brought on 13 May 2011 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD)
(Case T-247/11)
2011/C 238/33
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: FairWild Foundation (Weinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Neuwald and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelheim, Germany)

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 3 March 2011 in the appeal proceedings in Case R 1014/2010-1;










—


reject the opposition to registration of international mark No 950 962‘FAIRWILD’;










—


order the defendant and the opponent to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, including the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: FairWild Foundation.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘FAIRWILD’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 29 and 30 — international registration No 950 962.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘WILD’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 29, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously assumed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks. The applicant complains that the Board of Appeal (i) wrongly assumed that the meaning of the sign ‘WILD’ is familiar only to the German and English-speaking public, and (ii) proceeded on the assumption that the term is not descriptive of the goods covered by the mark cited in opposition. On that basis, the Board of Appeal erred in law in ascribing average distinctiveness to the mark cited in opposition and in finding an average degree of similarity between the signs, as a result of which the assessment of the interrelated aspects of the likelihood of confusion had an unfavourable outcome as far as the applicant was concerned.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011142EN.01000101.xml










13.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 May 2011
2011/C 142/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4153




JPY


Japanese yen


114,54




DKK


Danish krone


7,4562




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87015




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9566




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2584




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8010




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,277




HUF


Hungarian forint


266,08




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9150




RON


Romanian leu


4,1155




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2440




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3331




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3677




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,0011




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7977




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7604




KRW


South Korean won


1 545,01




ZAR


South African rand


9,8332




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,1978




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3752




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 167,45




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2643




PHP


Philippine peso


61,036




RUB


Russian rouble


39,6900




THB


Thai baht


42,926




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3056




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5764




INR


Indian rupee


63,6850






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 466/2011 of 13 May 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit








L_2011125EN.01001001.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/10








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 466/2011
of 13 May 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 14 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 May 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 


MA 


63,1 




TN 


102,3 




TR 


68,9 




ZZ 


78,1 




0707 00 05 


TR 


108,9 




ZZ 


108,9 




0709 90 70 


MA 


86,8 




TR 


123,4 




ZZ 


105,1 




0709 90 80 


EC 


27,0 




ZZ 


27,0 




0805 10 20 


EG 


56,5 




IL 


55,5 




MA 


45,5 




TN 


54,9 




TR 


71,6 




ZZ 


56,8 




0805 50 10 


TR 


53,9 




ZZ 


53,9 




0808 10 80 


AR 


91,1 




BR 


71,3 




CA 


107,1 




CL 


84,0 




CN 


96,2 




NZ 


114,9 




US 


172,7 




UY 


59,9 




ZA 


84,5 




ZZ 


98,0 






(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’.
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Pakistan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Pakistan, admission of aliens, agreement (EU), illegal migration, ratification of an agreement, residence permit, restriction of liberty








L_2011124EN.01000101.xml










13.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 124/1







Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and Pakistan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation

The Agreement between the European Union and Pakistan on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation entered into force on 1 December 2010, the procedure provided for in Article 20 of the Agreement having been completed on 8 October 2010.
Case C-223/11: Action brought on 13 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, publication, territorial waters








C_2011211EN.01001601.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/16





Action brought on 13 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-223/11)
2011/C 211/30
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Guerra e Andrade and I. Hadjiyannis, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






1.


Declare that:






—


by failing to publish national and international plans for the management of river basins, the Portuguese State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(6), in conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2), of Directive 2000/60/EC; (1)











—


by failing to publish and make available for comments to the public, including users, draft copies of the river basin management plans, the Portuguese State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2000/60/EC;










—


by failing to send to the Commission copies of the plans for river basin management, the Portuguese State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC;














2.


Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments



Article 13 of Directive 2000/60/EC


Article 13(6), in conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2), of Directive 2000/60/EC, provides that the river basin management plans of every river basin district, whether national or international, falling entirely within the European Union must be published by 22 December 2009 at the latest.
The Commission has not been notified, nor is it aware, that any such plans have been published, so far as Portugal is concerned.


Article 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC


As the Directive makes clear, public participation is considered essential to the pursuit of the Directive’s objectives.
The Commission has not been notified, nor is it aware, that any draft river basin management plans whatsoever have been published or made available for comments to the public, including users.


Article 15 of Directive 2000/60/EC


The Commission has received from the Portuguese State no copies of plans for river basin management or of those for national or international river basin districts.


(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).
2011/290/EU: Council Decision of 13 May 2011 on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU office or agency, EU programme, Ukraine, cooperation agreement, protocol to an agreement, signature of an agreement








L_2011133EN.01000101.xml










20.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 133/1








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 13 May 2011
         
on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes
(2011/290/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,


Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (2), on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Protocol’) was signed on behalf of the Union on 22 November 2010.












(2)


As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.












(3)


The Protocol should be concluded,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the general principles for the participation of Ukraine in Union programmes (3) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Protocol’) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.


Article 2
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 13 May 2011.


For the Council


The President


               MARTONYI J.





(1)  Consent of 6 April 2011.

(2)  
            OJ L 49, 19.2.1998, p. 3.

(3)  
            OJ L 18, 21.1.2011, p. 3.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6221 — Colgate Palmolive/Sanex Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, economic concentration, exchange of information, health care, merger control








C_2011142EN.01004401.xml










13.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/44





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6221 — Colgate Palmolive/Sanex Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 142/07






1.


On 28 April 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Colgate-Palmolive Europe SARL and Colgate-Palmolive Company — together Colgate Palmolive Group (USA), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Sanex Business (‘Sanex’) belonging to Unilever by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Colgate Palmolive is active internationally in the consumer goods sector and has as its core businesses oral care, personal care, home care and pet nutrition,










—


Sanex is active in the personal care sector.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6221 — Colgate Palmolive/Sanex Business, 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’).