do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-238/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — French Republic v European Parliament
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Member of Parliament, parliamentary session, seat of institution








C_2011226EN.01001301.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/13





Action brought on 19 May 2011 — French Republic v European Parliament
(Case C-238/11)
2011/C 226/25
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


annul the deliberations of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 relating to the calendar of periods of sessions of the Parliament for the year 2013;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward a single plea in support of its action, alleging, first, infringement of the Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, and of Protocol No 3 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the ECSC Treaty, and, second, non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of 1 October 1997 in Case C-345/95 France v Parliament [1997] ECR I-5235.
According to the French Government, in providing that two of the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions which must be held each year in Strasbourg are to be reduced from four to two days and will take place, in 2013, during the same week of October, the European Parliament sought to circumvent the rule that the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, must be held in Strasbourg. The contested deliberation leads, in reality, to one of the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions which must be held in Strasbourg being eliminated. Its sole objective is thus to diminish the length of time the MEPs are present at the seat of the European Parliament, without its being justified by internal organisational requirements relating to the work of the Parliament.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 490/2011 of 19 May 2011 not fixing a minimum selling price in response to the twenty-first individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, market intervention, minimum price, selling price, skimmed milk powder








L_2011133EN.01001501.xml










20.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 133/15








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 490/2011
of 19 May 2011
         
not fixing a minimum selling price in response to the twenty-first individual invitation to tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010


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), and in particular Article 43(j), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EU) No 447/2010 (2) has opened the sales of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (3).












(2)


In the light of the tenders received in response to individual invitations to tender, the Commission should fix a minimum selling price or should decide not to fix a minimum selling price, in accordance with Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009.












(3)


In the light of the tenders received for the twenty-first individual invitation to tender, no minimum selling price should be fixed.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the twenty-first individual invitation to tender for selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 17 May 2011, no minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder shall be fixed.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 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 126, 22.5.2010, p. 19.

(3)  
            OJ L 349, 29.12.2009, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011148EN.01000101.xml










19.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 May 2011
(2011/C 148/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4227




JPY


Japanese yen


115,45




DKK


Danish krone


7,4573




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88065




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9840




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2545




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,9360




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,505




HUF


Hungarian forint


269,03




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9263




RON


Romanian leu


4,1191




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2534




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3441




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3860




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,0614




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8079




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7697




KRW


South Korean won


1 547,56




ZAR


South African rand


9,8562




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2542




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4125




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 180,88




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3165




PHP


Philippine peso


61,477




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9070




THB


Thai baht


43,065




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3036




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6891




INR


Indian rupee


64,1000






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-210/09: Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Formenti Seleco v Commission (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Importation of colour televisions from Turkey — Application for damages — Statute barred — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Türkiye, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, audiovisual equipment, import policy








C_2011204EN.01002302.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/23





Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Formenti Seleco v Commission
(Case T-210/09) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Importation of colour televisions from Turkey - Application for damages - Statute barred - Inadmissibility)
2011/C 204/42
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Formenti Seleco SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Malatesta, G. Terracciano and S. Malatesta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf and D. Grespan, Agents)

Re:

Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to take measures preventing the Turkish authorities from infringing the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey when determining the origin of colour televisions imported into the Community from Turkey.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


Formenti Seleco SpA is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 486/2011 of 19 May 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit








L_2011133EN.01000801.xml










20.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 133/8








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 486/2011
of 19 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 20 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 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 


JO 


50,2 




MA 


40,7 




TN 


91,1 




TR 


73,2 




ZZ 


63,8 




0707 00 05 


TR 


108,9 




ZZ 


108,9 




0709 90 70 


MA 


86,8 




TR 


118,7 




ZZ 


102,8 




0709 90 80 


EC 


27,0 




ZZ 


27,0 




0805 10 20 


EG 


58,6 




IL 


55,4 




MA 


46,2 




TR 


74,4 




ZZ 


58,7 




0805 50 10 


AR 


72,2 




TR 


69,4 




ZA 


91,9 




ZZ 


77,8 




0808 10 80 


AR 


94,1 




BR 


69,2 




CA 


108,5 




CL 


86,7 




CN 


112,1 




NZ 


112,4 




US 


151,2 




UY 


60,0 




ZA 


79,7 




ZZ 


97,1 






(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-265/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — Elmaghraby v Council
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, indemnification, international sanctions








C_2011219EN.01001901.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/19





Action brought on 19 May 2011 — Elmaghraby v Council
(Case T-265/11)
2011/C 219/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ahmed Alaeldin Amin Abdelmaksoud Elmaghraby (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Lööf, Barrister, and M. O'Kane, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63);










—


Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), implementing Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP;










—


Order the defendant to pay damages in sum of EUR 5 000; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Article 29 TEU is an erroneous and/or insufficient legal basis for Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, as:






—


The aforementioned Decision does not pursue a foreign policy objective;










—


The adoption of such Decision (and of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011) constitutes an abuse of power; and










—


The inclusion of the applicant in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (and the corresponding Regulation) was irrational.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates his right to effective judicial protection.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damages as a direct result of the adoption of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, which fall to be made good by the Union.
Case C-184/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Driving licence issued by a Member State in disregard of the residence condition — Refusal of recognition by the host Member State based solely on disregard of the residence condition)
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, driving licence, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas








C_2011204EN.01001001.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-184/10) (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Driving licence issued by a Member State in disregard of the residence condition - Refusal of recognition by the host Member State based solely on disregard of the residence condition)
2011/C 204/18
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mathilde Grasser

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Driving licence issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State normally resident in that other Member State at the time of issue of the licence and never having been the subject of a measure withdrawing the national licence — Whether Member States may refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State on the sole basis of the infringement of the residence condition

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2008/65/EC of 27 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a host Member State from refusing to recognise in its territory a driving licence issued by another Member State, where it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in that licence, that the normal residence condition, laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, has not been observed. The fact that the host Member State has not applied any measure under Article 8(2) of that directive to the licence holder is irrelevant in that regard.


(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Case T-266/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — El Gazaerly v Council
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, indemnification, international sanctions








C_2011219EN.01002001.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/20





Action brought on 19 May 2011 — El Gazaerly v Council
(Case T-266/11)
2011/C 219/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Naglaa Abdallah El Gazaerly (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Lööf, Barrister, and M. O'Kane, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63);










—


Annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), implementing Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP;










—


Order the defendant to pay damages in sum of EUR 10 000; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Article 29 TEU is an erroneous and/or insufficient legal basis for Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP, as:






—


The aforementioned Decision does not pursue a foreign policy objective;










—


The adoption of such Decision (and of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011) constitutes an abuse of power; and










—


The inclusion of the applicant in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (and the corresponding Regulation) was irrational.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates his right to effective judicial protection.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant within the ambit of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 violates the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damages as a direct result of the adoption of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, which fall to be made good by the Union.
Case T-580/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — PJ Hungary v OHIM — Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PEPEQUILLO — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks PEPE and PEPE JEANS — Restitutio in integrum — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law, EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2011194EN.01001302.xml










2.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/13





Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — PJ Hungary v OHIM — Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO)
(Case T-580/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PEPEQUILLO - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks PEPE and PEPE JEANS - Restitutio in integrum - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2011/C 194/19
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and C. Gutiérrez Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Pepekillo, SL (Algeciras, Spain) (represented by: J. Garrido Pastor, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April and 24 September 2008 (both given in Case R 722/2007-1), concerning the application restitutio in integrum of Pepekillo, SL, and the opposition proceedings between PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) and Pepekillo, respectively.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2008 (Case R 722/2007-1) is annulled;










2.


The remainder of the action is dismissed;










3.


OHIM is ordered to bear its own costs, half of the costs of PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) as well as the costs necessarily incurred by PJ Hungary kft for the purpose of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM;










4.


Pepekillo, SL is ordered to bear its own costs and half of the costs of PJ Hungary kft.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.