do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-487/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark ReValue — Application refused in part — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011232EN.01002901.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/29






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue)
(Case T-487/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark ReValue - Application refused in part - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
(2011/C 232/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: initially, S. Fischoeder and M. Schork and, subsequently, S. Fischoeder (lawyers))

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2009 (Case R 531/2009-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ReValue as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
Case C-321/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2011 — Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, air transport, carriage of passengers, interpretation of the law








C_2011282EN.01000301.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2011 — Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.
(Case C-321/11)
2011/C 282/04
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor

Defendant: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.

Question referred

May the definition of ‘denied boarding’ contained in Article 2(j), in conjunction with Article 3(2) and 4(3), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, (1) be regarded as including a situation in which an airline refuses to allow boarding because the first flight included in the ticket is subject to a delay ascribable to the airline and the latter erroneously expects the passengers not to arrive in time to catch the second flight, and so allows their seats to be taken by other passengers?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004
establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement; OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case F-49/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank (Staff case — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Sickness insurance — Refusal to reimburse medical expenses — Request for independent doctor to be designated — Reasonable period of time)
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Investment Bank, action for annulment, civil servant, health service, therapeutics








C_2011232EN.01004001.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/40






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank
(Case F-49/10) (1)

(Staff case - Staff of the European Investment Bank - Sickness insurance - Refusal to reimburse medical expenses - Request for independent doctor to be designated - Reasonable period of time)
(2011/C 232/69)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Isola, avocat)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to reimburse sessions of laser therapy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the parties to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 221 of 14.8.10, p. 61.
Case C-93/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by Verein Deutsche Sprache eV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2010 in Case T-245/10 Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. v Council of the European Union
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European language, Germany, association, language teaching








C_2011269EN.01001901.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/19





Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by Verein Deutsche Sprache eV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2010 in Case T-245/10 Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. v Council of the European Union
(Case C-93/11 P)
2011/C 269/32
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. (represented by: K.T. Bröcker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
By order of 28 June 2011 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case F-128/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — Mora Carrasco and Others v European Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Inter-institutional transfer in the course of the promotion period during which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin — Competent institution to decide on the promotion of the transferred official)
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment, promotion








C_2011232EN.01004102.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/41






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — Mora Carrasco and Others v European Parliament
(Case F-128/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Inter-institutional transfer in the course of the promotion period during which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin - Competent institution to decide on the promotion of the transferred official)
(2011/C 232/73)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mora Carrasco and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and J.F. de Wachter, agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion period

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Parliament to bear the costs of the applicants in addition to its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 35.
Case F-55/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — AS v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of application — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Official on invalidity — Decision to reject candidature not inseparable from decision to appoint — Distinction drawn between officials in the same function group and holding the same grade and at a different stage in their career)
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, European official, action for annulment, damages, indemnification, library, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)








C_2011232EN.01004002.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/40






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — AS v Commission
(Case F-55/10) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of application - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Official on invalidity - Decision to reject candidature not inseparable from decision to appoint - Distinction drawn between officials in the same function group and holding the same grade and at a different stage in their career)
(2011/C 232/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AS (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to take into consideration the applicant’s application for a post as a library assistant and for an order for the Commission to pay her a sum as compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 30 September 2009 by which the European Commission rejected AS’s application;;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay AS the sum of EUR 3 000;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










4.


Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of AS’s costs;










5.


Orders AS to pay a quarter of her own costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010, p. 43.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Ukraine, anti-dumping measure, household article, import (EU), originating product








C_2011187EN.01002101.xml










28.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/21





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2011/C 187/11
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Ironing boards


People’s Republic of China
Ukraine


Anti-dumping duty


Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 (OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 12) as last amended by Council Implementig Regulation (EU) No 1241/2010 (OJ L 338, 22.12.2010, p. 8)
Council Implementig Regulation (EU) No 1243/2010 (OJ L 338, 22.12.2010, p. 22)


27.4.2012






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-322/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 June 2011 — K
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, real property, sale, social participation, tax relief








C_2011252EN.01002501.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 June 2011 — K
(Case C-322/11)
2011/C 252/46
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: K

Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, Valtiovarainministeriö

Question referred

Must Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a person with general liability to tax in Finland cannot deduct a loss incurred on the transfer of immovable property situated in France from gains on the transfer of shares taxable in Finland, whereas a person with general liability to tax in Finland may on certain conditions deduct a loss on the transfer of equivalent immovable property situated in Finland from gains on transfer?
Case C-328/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 June 2011 by Alder Capital Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09: Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial capital, trade-mark law








C_2011269EN.01003002.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/30





Appeal brought on 28 June 2011 by Alder Capital Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09: Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV
(Case C-328/11 P)
2011/C 269/58
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Alder Capital Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court of Justice to make the following orders:






—


The judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09 and the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 20 February 2009 in Case R 486/2008-2 are annulled.










—


The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this Court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the contested judgment must be annulled on three separate grounds.
The principal ground is that the General Court committed legal error when it held that the Board of Appeal was required, as a matter of law, to review the claim for a declaration of invalidity as it had been presented to the Office's Invalidity Division. The Appellant's claim is that the scope of review was limited to the subject matter of the appeal brought by the Appellant.
The subsidiary grounds are:






—


that the General Court committed legal error in dismissing the Appellants’ arguments as ‘irrelevant’ that the Intervener infringed applicable financial services authorisation and regulation and anti-money laundering laws and regulations in offering the services for which its mark ‘Halder’ was used in Germany (infringement of Article 56 (2) and (3) CTMR in conjunction with Article 15 CTMR), and










—


that the General Court committed legal error in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion even though the degree of attention of the public was ‘very high’ (infringement of Article 8 (l)(b) CTMR).
Case T-454/09 P: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — van Arum v Parliament (Appeals — Staff Cases — Officials — Reports — Staff report — Reporting exercise for 2005 — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, professional career, staff assessment








C_2011282EN.01001803.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/18





Order of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — van Arum v Parliament
(Case T-454/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Staff Cases - Officials - Reports - Staff report - Reporting exercise for 2005 - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
2011/C 282/35
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: J. F. de Wachter, K. Zejdová et R. Ignătescu, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07 van Arum v Parliament ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Rinse van Arum is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 420/2011 of 29 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs ( OJ L 111, 30.4.2011 )
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, data transmission, food safety, food standard, foodstuff, marketing standard








L_2011168EN.01002001.xml










28.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 168/20







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 420/2011 of 29 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 111 of 30 April 2011
)

On page 6, Annex, point 5, in the header of the table:
for:

               ‘mg/kg’,
read:

               ‘μg/kg’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6195 — Holcim/Basalt/H + B Grondstoffen JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control








C_2011187EN.01001002.xml










28.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/10





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6195 — Holcim/Basalt/H + B Grondstoffen JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 187/04
On 6 June 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6195. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6218 — INEOS/Tessenderlo Group S-PVC Assets)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, petrochemicals








C_2011187EN.01002701.xml










28.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/27





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6218 — INEOS/Tessenderlo Group S-PVC Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 187/13






1.


On 20 June 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 Kerling plc, operating under the trading name of INEOS ChlorVinyls, and part of the wider INEOS Group of companies (‘INEOS’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of parts of Tessenderlo Chemie NV, operating under the trading name of the Tessenderlo Group (‘Tessenderlo’, Belgium) by way of purchase of certain Suspension Polyvinyl Chloride (‘S-PVC’) related assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for INEOS: The manufacture of petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and oil products. Through its subsidiary INEOS ChlorVinyls, the company is one of the major chlor-alkali producers in Europe and an important supplier of PVC,










—


for Tessenderlo: Chemical industry, natural derivatives, plastics converting, gelatine, and agricultural solutions. The assets to be sold comprise Tessenderlo's S-PVC business.














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.6218 — INEOS/Tessenderlo Group S-PVC 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’).