do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-83/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Appeal — State aid — Article 88(2) and (3) EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Decision not to raise any objections — Action for annulment — Conditions for admissibility — Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment — Notion of ‘interested party’ — Competitive link — Assignment — Market for supply)
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, aid system, appeal, regional aid, wood industry








C_2011204EN.01000502.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/5





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt
(Case C-83/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 88(2) and (3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Conditions for admissibility - Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment - Notion of ‘interested party’ - Competitive link - Assignment - Market for supply)
2011/C 204/09
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, Rechtsanwälte), Zellstoff Stendal GmbH (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and K. Karl, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 10 December 2008 in Case T-388/02 Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission inasmuch as the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) held admissible (albeit ultimately unfounded) an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections in relation to the aid granted by the German authorities in favour of Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for pulp — Incorrect assessment of the conditions for the admissibility of an action for annulment of a Commission decision based on Article 88(3) EC, brought by a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission and Zellstoff Stendal GmbH to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
Case C-265/11 P: Appeal lodged on 24 May 2011 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2011 in Case T-429/09 Campailla v European Commission
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cameroon, complaint to the Commission, fundamental rights, indemnification








C_2012013EN.01000201.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/2





Appeal lodged on 24 May 2011 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2011 in Case T-429/09 Campailla v European Commission
(Case C-265/11 P)
2012/C 13/02
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Massimo Campailla (represented by: M. Campailla)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 6 October 2011, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared the appeal inadmissible.
Case T-144/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Space Beach Club v OHIM — Flores Gómez (SpS space of sound) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ‘SpS space of sound’ — Earlier national and Community figurative marks ‘space ibiza’ , ‘space DANCE BARCELONA’ , ‘space DANCE MADRID’ , ‘space DANCE VALENCIA’ , ‘space DANCE MALLORCA’ , ‘space DANCE EIVISSA’ , ‘space SPACE IBIZA WORLD’ , ‘space DANCE’ and earlier national word mark ‘SPACE VIVA’ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), leisure, trade-mark law








C_2011204EN.01002202.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/22





Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Space Beach Club v OHIM — Flores Gómez (SpS space of sound)
(Case T-144/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘SpS space of sound’ - Earlier national and Community figurative marks ‘space ibiza’, ‘space DANCE BARCELONA’, ‘space DANCE MADRID’, ‘space DANCE VALENCIA’, ‘space DANCE MALLORCA’, ‘space DANCE EIVISSA’, ‘space SPACE IBIZA WORLD’, ‘space DANCE’ and earlier national word mark ‘SPACE VIVA’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 204/39
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Space Beach Club, SA (San Jorge, Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: A. I. Alejos Cutili, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. J. Vela Ballesteros and B. C. Lamas Begué, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2010 (Case R 766/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Space Beach Club, SA and Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Space Beach Club, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus apply
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, civil servant, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2011153EN.01001001.xml










24.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 153/10





Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus apply
2011/C 153/06
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who appear in Annex IIIA to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP (2), and in Annex IA to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 505/2011 (4), concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/639/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned lists should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 18.

(2)  OJ L 136, 24.5.2011, p. 91.

(3)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 136, 24.5.2011, p. 48.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6205 — Eli Lilly/Janssen Pharmaceutica Animal Health Business Assets)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, pharmaceutical product








C_2011153EN.01001701.xml










24.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 153/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6205 — Eli Lilly/Janssen Pharmaceutica Animal Health Business Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 153/09






1.


On 13 May 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Eli Lilly and Company (‘Eli Lilly’, the US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of Janssen Animal Health Business Assets (JAH) of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (‘Janssen’, Belgium) by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Eli Lilly: discovery, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products for humans and animals,










—


JAH: development and sale of animal health pharmaceuticals for companion animals and livestock (mainly swine and poultry).














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.6205 — Eli Lilly/Janssen Pharmaceutica Animal Health Business Assets, 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’).
Case C-50/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 45 EC — Connection with the exercise of official authority)
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, access to a profession, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, discrimination on the basis of nationality, notary, right of establishment








C_2011204EN.01000202.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-50/08) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority)
2011/C 204/03
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov and E. Petranova, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér, Agents), Romania (represented by: C. Osman, A. Gheorghiu, A. Stoia and A. Popescu, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC — National legislation making access to the profession of notary and its pursuit subject to a nationality requirement — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — Scope of the exception relating to activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Requirement of direct and specific connection with such exercise

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, Romania, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
Case T-489/08: Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Power-One Italy v Commission (Action for compensation — Project cofunded by the financial instrument LIFE + — Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (Pneuma project) — Abuse of process — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, broadcasting, energy distribution, mobile phone, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2011211EN.01002303.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/23





Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Power-One Italy v Commission
(Case T-489/08) (1)

(Action for compensation - Project cofunded by the financial instrument LIFE + - Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (Pneuma project) - Abuse of process - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
2011/C 211/51
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Power-One Italy SpA (Terranova Bracciolini, Italy) (represented by R.Giuffrida and A. Giussani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by P. Oliver and D. Recchia, Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission’s decision to end the Pneuma project (LIFE04 ENV/IT/000595), intended to cofund development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony.

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:






1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Power-One Italy SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.
Case C-52/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Notaries — Directive 2005/36/EC)
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, freedom to provide services, notary, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment








C_2011204EN.01000302.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-52/08) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Notaries - Directive 2005/36/EC)
2011/C 204/05
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: represented by H. Støvlbæk and P. Andrade, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent, and by K. Smith, Barrister)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F.S. Gaspar Rosa, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed, with regard to the profession of notary, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), which repealed Directive 89/49/EEC (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) ( OJ L 134, 21.5.2011 )
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Chemicals Agency, cadmium, carcinogenic substance, environmental risk prevention, marketing standard, product safety, toxic substance








L_2011136EN.01010501.xml










24.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 136/105







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium)
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 134 of 21 May 2011
)

On page 3, Article 2, second subparagraph:
for:

‘It shall apply from 10 January 2012.’,

read:

‘It shall apply from 10 December 2011.’;

on page 4, point 1 of the Annex, paragraph 1, third subparagraph of the modified table:
for:


                  ‘By way of derogation, the second subparagraph shall not apply to articles placed on the market before 10 January 2012.’,

read:


                  ‘By way of derogation, the second subparagraph shall not apply to articles placed on the market before 10 December 2011.’;

on page 5, point 2 of the Annex, paragraph 11 of the modified table:
for:







‘11.


By way of derogation, paragraph 10 shall not apply to articles placed on the market before 10 January 2012 and jewellery more than 50 years old on 10 January 2012.’,





read:







‘11.


By way of derogation, paragraph 10 shall not apply to articles placed on the market before 10 December 2011 and jewellery more than 50 years old on 10 December 2011.’.
Case C-61/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 45 EC — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Directive 89/48/EEC)
Date: 2011-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, discrimination on the basis of nationality, higher education, liberal profession, notary, recognition of diplomas, vocational training








C_2011204EN.01000501.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/5





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-61/08) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directive 89/48/EEC)
2011/C 204/08
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Christianos, E.-M. Mamouna and A. Samoni-Rantou, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Articles 43 and 45 EC and Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — National rules making pursuit of the profession of notary subject to a nationality requirement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic, the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.