do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-260/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 25 May 2011 — Regina on the application of David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU environmental policy, United Kingdom, appeal, judicial proceedings, legal expenses








C_2011226EN.01001601.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 25 May 2011 — Regina on the application of David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Case C-260/11)
2011/C 226/30
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos

Defendants: Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Questions referred







1.


How should a national court approach the question of awards of costs against a member of the public who is an unsuccessful claimant in an environmental claim, having regard to the requirements of Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention, as implemented by article 10a 85/337/EEC (1) and article 15a 96/61/EEC (2) (‘the Directives’)?










2.


Should the question whether the cost of the litigation is or is not ‘prohibitively expensive’ within the meaning of Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention as implemented by the Directives be decided on an objective basis (by reference, for example, to the ability of an ‘ordinary’ member of the public to meet the potential liability for costs), or should it be decided on a subjective basis (by reference to the means of the particular claimant) or upon some combination of these two bases?










3.


Or is this entirely a matter for the national law of the Member State subject only to achieving the result laid down by the Directives, namely that the proceedings in question are not ‘prohibitively expensive’?










4.


In considering whether proceedings are, or are not, ‘prohibitively expensive’, is it relevant that the claimant has not in fact been deterred from bringing or continuing with the proceedings?










5.


Is a different approach to these issues permissible at the stage of (i) an appeal or (ii) a second appeal from that which requires to be taken at first instance?






(1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985. OJ L 175, p. 40

(2)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996. OJ L 257, p. 26
Case T-422/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM — Fischer (BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES — Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks havaianas and earlier national word mark HAVAIANAS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), footwear industry, trade-mark law








C_2011204EN.01002201.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/22





Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM — Fischer (BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES)
(Case T-422/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES - Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks havaianas and earlier national word mark HAVAIANAS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 204/38
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: São Paulo Alpargatas, SA (São Paolo, Brazil) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enrique Fischer (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: initially E. Rasche Aparicio, then M. de Justo Bailey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between São Paulo Alpargatas, SA and Enrique Fischer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by São Paulo Alpargatas, SA;










3.


Orders Enrique Fischer to pay his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.
Case F-93/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 May 2011 — AL v Parliament
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment, indemnification, legal expenses








C_2011232EN.01004302.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/43






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 May 2011 — AL v Parliament
(Case F-93/10) (1)

(2011/C 232/79)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.


(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.10, p. 61.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, European civil service, competition (EU), invitation to tender, public contract, translation








C_2011155EN.01001801.xml










25.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/18





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
2011/C 155/05
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition:
EPSO/AD/215/11 — Administrators (AD 5) with English (EN), Spanish (ES), Estonian (ET), French (FR), Dutch (NL), Polish (PL), Portuguese (PT), Slovak (SK), Slovene (SL) or Swedish (SV) as their main language in the field of Communication
The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 155 A of 25 May 2011 in English, Spanish, Estonian, French, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovene and Swedish only.
Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 519/2011 of 25 May 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit








L_2011138EN.01005401.xml










26.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 138/54








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 519/2011
of 25 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 26 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 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 


35,3 




TR 


71,5 




ZZ 


53,4 




0707 00 05 


AL 


31,8 




TR 


108,2 




ZZ 


70,0 




0709 90 70 


AR 


34,9 




MA 


86,8 




TR 


121,5 




ZZ 


81,1 




0709 90 80 


EC 


23,2 




ZZ 


23,2 




0805 10 20 


EG 


58,0 




IL 


63,3 




MA 


45,9 




TR 


74,4 




ZZ 


60,4 




0805 50 10 


AR 


72,2 




TR 


77,7 




ZA 


91,9 




ZZ 


80,6 




0808 10 80 


AR 


99,8 




BR 


82,8 




CA 


129,0 




CL 


80,3 




CN 


88,5 




CR 


69,1 




NZ 


109,3 




US 


90,7 




UY 


53,3 




ZA 


87,4 




ZZ 


89,0 






(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’.
Case T-274/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2011 by VE (*) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F-28/10, VE (*) v Commission
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, action for annulment, indemnification, proof, residence




C_2011232EN.01003201.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/32






Appeal brought on 25 May 2011 by  VE (*1) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F-28/10,  VE (*1) v Commission
(Case T-274/11 P)
(2011/C 232/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: VE (*1) (represented by L. Vogel, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Annul in its entirety the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 15 March 2011, notified by registered letter on 15 March 2011, dismissing the appellant’s action of 7 May 2010;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, including costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, such as travel and accommodation costs, plus lawyers’ fees pursuant to Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant makes two pleas in support of the appeal.






1.


The first plea claims infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and distortion of the evidence produced before the Civil Service Tribunal. The appellant accuses the Civil Service Tribunal, first, of misinterpreting the documents numbered 22, 23, 24 and 25 on his file by deciding, at paragraph 31 of its judgment, that his presence in France between 1999 and 2000 could not be assimilated to a wish of the applicant to move the centre of his interests to his home country and, secondly, of making an incoherent assessment of the concept of habitual residence in paragraphs 29, 31 and 33 of the judgment under appeal.










2.


The second plea claims distortion of the evidence produced before the Civil Service Tribunal and an insufficient statement of reasons, in that the Civil Service Tribunal justifies the belated withdrawal of the benefit of the expatriation allowance ‘by a misunderstanding concerning the place where the applicant had obtained his baccalaureate’. The appellant accuses the Tribunal of not taking document 15 of his file into account, not replying to point 31 of his action and thus making clearly incorrect findings.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6220 — General Mills/Yoplait) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, food industry, merger control, yoghourt








C_2011155EN.01002001.xml










25.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/20





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6220 — General Mills/Yoplait)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 155/07






1.


On 18 May 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking General Mills Inc. (‘General Mills’, United States of America), a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the Yoplait group (‘Yoplait’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for General Mills: manufacturing and sale of consumer food products such as ready-to-eat cereals, main meals, frozen foods, side dishes, desserts, ice-creams, flour and baking mixes, and snacks. In the US, General Mills has been Yoplait’s franchisee since 1977,










—


for Yoplait: manufacturing and sale of fresh dairy products such as yoghurts, dairy desserts, fresh cheese and cream.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6220 — General Mills/Yoplait, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6241 — CIE Management II/Gruppo Coin) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, telecommunications industry, textile industry








C_2011155EN.01001901.xml










25.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6241 — CIE Management II/Gruppo Coin)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 155/06






1.


On 16 May 2011 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking CIE Management II Limited (‘CIE’) (Guernsey) controlled by BC Partners Holdings, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Giorgione Investimenti SpA (‘Giorgione’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CIE: general partner and manager or attorney of the BC Funds (which are private equity investment funds),










—


for Giorgione: holding company of Gruppo Coin SpA, a distributor, retailer and manufacturer of apparel, accessories, health and beauty products and home decorations.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6241 — CIE Management II/Gruppo Coin, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case F-74/07 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 May 2011 — Stefan Meierhofer v European Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Failure of a candidate in the oral test — Obligation to state reasons — Rules governing the work of the selection board)
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appointment of staff, competition (EU), recruitment








C_2011232EN.01004103.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/41






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 May 2011 — Stefan Meierhofer v European Commission
(Case F-74/07 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Failure of a candidate in the oral test - Obligation to state reasons - Rules governing the work of the selection board)
(2011/C 232/74)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H.-G. Schiessl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO AD/26/05 of 10 May 2007 not to include the applicant on the reserve list of that competition on the ground of his insufficient mark in the oral test.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on Mr Meierhofer's action in so far as it disputes the insufficient statement of reasons for the decision of 19 June 2007.










2.


The remainder of Mr Meierhofer's action is dismissed, in part as manifestly unfounded, and in part as manifestly inadmissible.










3.


The European Commission shall bear two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant in the first set of proceedings before the Tribunal and its own costs relating to the first set of proceedings before the Tribunal, the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and the present proceedings.










4.


The applicant shall bear one-third of his own costs relating to the first set of proceedings before the Tribunal and all his own costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 21.
Case F-22/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 May 2011 — Luis Maria Bombín Bombín v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Annual leave — Carry-over of annual leave — Official who has left the service — Financial compensation)
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, indemnification, paid leave, unpaid leave








C_2011232EN.01003903.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/39






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 May 2011 — Luis Maria Bombín Bombín v European Commission
(Case F-22/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Leave on personal grounds - Annual leave - Carry-over of annual leave - Official who has left the service - Financial compensation)
(2011/C 232/68)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Luis Maria Bombín Bombín (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Pardo Pedernera, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission to refuse the applicant, on his retirement, compensation for more than 12 days of annual leave not taken

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses Mr Bombín Bombín's action;










2.


Orders Mr Bombín Bombín to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 54.
Case T-397/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — Prinz von Hannover v OHIM (Representation of a coat of arms) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a coat of arms — Absolute ground for refusal — Imitation from a heraldic point of view of the symbol of a State — Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention)
Date: 2011-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011204EN.01002101.xml










9.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/21





Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — Prinz von Hannover v OHIM (Representation of a coat of arms)
(Case T-397/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a coat of arms - Absolute ground for refusal - Imitation from a heraldic point of view of the symbol of a State - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention)
2011/C 204/36
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: R. Stötzel and J. Hilger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 1361/2008-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing the coat of arms of the house of Hanover.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.