do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-267/10 and C-268/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium)) — André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10) v Etat Belge — SPF Finances (Article 6(1) TEU — Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Possession and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco — National legislation authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products — Court manifestly incompetent)
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, excise duty, interpretation of the law, right to health, smoking, tobacco industry








C_2011232EN.01001002.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/10






Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium)) — André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10) v Etat Belge — SPF Finances
(Joined Cases C-267/10 and C-268/10) (1)

(Article 6(1) TEU - Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Possession and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco - National legislation authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products - Court manifestly incompetent)
(2011/C 232/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10)

Defendant: Etat Belge — SPF Finances

In the presence of: Etat Belge — Service public federal Défense

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU and of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Whether national legislation permitting the production, import, promotion and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco, recognised to be seriously harmful, is compatible with the object of protecting human health — Whether the provisions of national law authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products are valid in the light of the [EU] rules cited

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union is manifestly incompetent to reply to the questions asked by the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) by decisions of 24 March 2010.


(1)  OJ C 221, 14.08.2010.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 507/2011 of 23 May 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit








L_2011136EN.01005601.xml










24.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 136/56








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 507/2011
of 23 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 24 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 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 


35,3 




TN 


91,1 




TR 


112,0 




ZZ 


72,2 




0707 00 05 


TR 


108,2 




ZZ 


108,2 




0709 90 70 


AR 


34,9 




MA 


86,8 




TR 


116,8 




ZZ 


79,5 




0709 90 80 


EC 


23,2 




ZZ 


23,2 




0805 10 20 


EG 


52,8 




IL 


62,4 




MA 


45,5 




TR 


74,4 




ZZ 


58,8 




0805 50 10 


AR 


72,2 




TR 


91,2 




ZA 


176,3 




ZZ 


113,2 




0808 10 80 


AR 


91,3 




BR 


86,2 




CA 


108,5 




CL 


78,5 




CN 


102,4 




CR 


69,1 




NZ 


116,9 




US 


102,7 




UY 


60,0 




ZA 


85,7 




ZZ 


90,1 






(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 C-86/10: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegburg (Germany)) — Hüseyin Balaban v Zelter GmbH
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, employment policy, interpretation of the law, social policy








C_2011252EN.01002701.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/27





Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegburg (Germany)) — Hüseyin Balaban v Zelter GmbH
(Case C-86/10) (1)

2011/C 252/52
Language of the case: German
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case T-226/10: Order of the General Court of 23 May 2011 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission (Action for annulment — Representation by lawyers who are not third parties — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, action for annulment, competition, exchange of information, provision of services, supplier, telecommunications industry, wholesale trading centre








C_2011204EN.01002303.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/23





Order of the General Court of 23 May 2011 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
(Case T-226/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Representation by lawyers who are not third parties - Inadmissibility)
2011/C 204/43
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: H. Gruszecka and D. Pawłowska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 1234 of 3 March 2010, adopted pursuant to Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2008 L 108, p. 33), ordering the Polish regulatory authority in the field of electronic communications services and postal services to withdraw two notified draft measures concerning the national wholesale market for IP traffic exchange (IP transit) (Case PL/2009/1019) and the wholesale market for IP peering with the network of Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (TP) (Case PL/2009/1020).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 518/2011 of 23 May 2011 establishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, Portugal, common fisheries policy, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2011138EN.01005201.xml










26.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 138/52








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 518/2011
of 23 May 2011
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 May 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 24, 27.1.2011, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


11/T&Q




Member State


Portugal




Stock


LEZ/8C3411




Species


Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)




Zone


VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1




Date


9 May 2011
Case F-57/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Joint Research Centre, assistant, civil service, indemnification








C_2011211EN.01003302.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/33





Action brought on 23 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-57/11)
2011/C 211/68
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission and a claim for compensation for material and non-material damage.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision contained in the letter of 5 August 2010 not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission by decision contained in the letter of 30 July 2010, sent to him by e-mail on 30 July 2010, and to withdraw that offer;










—


Annul, in so far as necessary, all acts preparatory to the contested decision;










—


Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority to reject the applicant’s complaint contained in the letter of 10 February 2011, sent to the applicant the following day;










—


Order the Commission to pay compensation for the material damage arising from the decision not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission by decision contained in the letter of 30 July 2010; the damage is assessed on a provisional basis as the difference between the total actual remuneration received by the applicant in his position as temporary agent with the Joint Research Centre and that to which he would have been entitled if he had been engaged in due time following his acceptance of the offer of a post as official in step 1 of Grade AST 3, together with late payment interest.










—


Order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage arising from the decision not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission in the decision in question contained in the letter of 30 July 2010, to be determined ex aequo et bono by the Civil Service Tribunal, assessed on a provisional basis for the purpose of this application at three times the basic monthly salary of an official in step 1 of Grade AST 3, in the total amount of EUR 10 001,31.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-252/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, consumer protection, court of arbitration, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract








C_2011269EN.01002201.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.
(Case C-252/11)
2011/C 269/41
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Erika Šujetová

Defendant: Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law under which the court with territorial jurisdiction for the review of an arbitral award is always and only the court in whose area of jurisdiction, pursuant to an arbitration agreement or clause, the arbitration tribunal is established or the place of arbitration is situated, if the court finds that the arbitration agreement or clause is an unfair term within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the above directive?










2.


If the answer to the first question is negative: do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude the application of a provision of national law under which a court … upon annulling an arbitral award, is to continue the main proceedings (i.e. concerning the claim originally heard before the arbitration tribunal) without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction over such continuing proceedings, even though, if the claim against the consumer had been filed from the outset with a court and not an arbitration tribunal, the court with territorial jurisdiction for the proceedings would have been, from the outset, the court of the consumer’s place of residence?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-257/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011211EN.01002901.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/29





Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)
(Case T-257/11)
2011/C 211/62
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Pangyrus Ltd (York, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Clubb, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RSVP Design Ltd (Renfrewshire, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 March 2011 in case R 751/2009-4;










—


Restore the decision of the Cancellation Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 May 2009; and










—


Award the costs in favour of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘COLOURBLIND’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 3337979

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity based its request on two grounds, namely Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, by invoking an earlier unregistered right protected under the law of passing-off in the United Kingdom, as well as on the existence of bad faith in accordance with Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark registration invalid in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding that: (i) the Community trade mark proprietor did not act in bad faith when it applied for the Community trade mark; and (ii) the applicant had failed to prove that it had used an earlier sign in the course of trade before the date in which the contested Community trade mark was applied for.
Case C-248/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana Maria Oprean (née Șchiopu), Sergiu Dan Dascăl, Ionuț Horea Baboș
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: investment company, official market, open market, securities








C_2011252EN.01001302.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana Maria Oprean (née Șchiopu), Sergiu Dan Dascăl, Ionuț Horea Baboș
(Case C-248/11)
2011/C 252/26
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curte de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana Maria Oprean (née Șchiopu), Sergiu Dan Dascăl, Ionuț Horea Baboș

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 4(1)(14) and Articles 9 to 14 of Directive 2004/39/EC (1) be interpreted as applying both to the main trading market authorised by the CNVM (Comisia Națională a Valorilor Mobiliare [National Securities Commission]) and to the secondary trading market, which has been incorporated into the former since 2005 (omissis) but has continued to be regarded as separate from the regulated market, even though its legal status has not been clarified by way of legislation?










2.


Must the provisions of Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a regulated market does not encompass those trading systems which do not comply with the provisions of Title III of the MIFID directive?










3.


Must the provisions of Article 47 of Directive 2004/39/EC be interpreted as meaning that a market which has not been notified by a competent national authority and is not included in the list of regulated markets is not subject to the legal rules applicable to the regulated markets, in particular as regards the rules designed to prevent market abuse under Directive 2003/6/EC?






(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).
Case T-263/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Bopp v OHIM (Octagon with green sides)
Date: 2011-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011238EN.01001901.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/19





Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Bopp v OHIM (Octagon with green sides)
(Case T-263/11)
2011/C 238/34
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by C. Russ, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2011 in Case R 605/2010-4.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of an octagon with green sides — application No 8 248 965.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive on account of the identifiable, spatial representation.