do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-331/11: Action brought on 30 June 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, storage of waste, waste disposal








C_2011282EN.01000401.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/4





Action brought on 30 June 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
(Case C-331/11)
2011/C 282/07
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Forms of order sought







—


declare that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina — Považský Chlmec waste site without a conditioning plan for the waste site and without adopting a definite decision on whether operations might continue on the basis of the said conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1)











—


order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Žilina — Považský Chlmec waste site is operated without any conditioning plan having been submitted and without the approval of any measures which might be needed on the basis of such a plan. The Commission therefore submits that the Court should declare that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina — Považský Chlmec waste site without a conditioning plan for the waste site and without adopting a definite decision on whether operations might continue on the basis of the said conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.


(1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.
Case C-333/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2011 — Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra) v Belgische Staat
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU Member State, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, offence








C_2011269EN.01003102.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/31





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2011 — Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra) v Belgische Staat
(Case C-333/11)
2011/C 269/60
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra)

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 37 of the TIR Convention and the second subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an official finding as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed, and of any proof to the contrary furnished within the specified period by the guarantor, the Member State where the existence of the offence or irregularity is detected is deemed to be the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed, even if it is possible, on the basis of the place where the TIR carnet was accepted and where the goods were sealed, without further investigation, to ascertain via which Member State situated at the external border of the Community the goods were unlawfully introduced into the Community?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, must the same Articles, in conjunction with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (2) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, be interpreted as meaning that the Member State situated at the external border of the Community where the goods were unlawfully introduced is also competent to collect the excise duty when the goods have in the meantime been taken to another Member State, where they were discovered, confiscated and forfeited?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.
Case C-288/10: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Wamo BVBA v JBC NV, Modemakers Fashion NV (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions)
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, advertising malpractice, consumer protection, interpretation of the law








C_2011252EN.01000901.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/9





Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Wamo BVBA v JBC NV, Modemakers Fashion NV
(Case C-288/10) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions)
2011/C 252/15
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wamo BVBA

Defendants: JBC NV, Modemakers Fashion NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions during certain periods preceding sales in specified sectors.

Operative part of the order

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a general prohibition of announcements of price reductions or announcements suggesting such reductions during the period preceding sales, in so far as the provision pursues objectives relating to consumer protection. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the situation in the case in the main proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6259 — Covéa/Bipiemme Vita) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, insurance company, merger control








C_2011190EN.01003701.xml










30.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/37







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6259 — Covéa/Bipiemme Vita)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2011/C 190/09)


1.   

On 17 June 2011, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which the undertaking Covéa (France), a Société de Groupe d'Assurance Mutuelle (SGAM, a group of mutual insurance organisations), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation through MMA IARD Assurances Mutuelles, MMA Vie Assurances Mutuelles, MAAF Assurances and Assurances de France (undertakings all belonging to the Covéa group) control of the whole of Bipiemme Vita SpA (Italy), by way of purchase of shares.



2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Covéa: managing financial links between mutual insurance organisations and other institutions within France's mutual sector; administering holdings in insurance and reinsurance undertakings,










—


for Bipiemme: life and non-life insurance in Italy.






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.6259 — Covéa/Bipiemme Vita, 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’).
Corrigendum to Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) ( OJ L 331, 15.12.2010 )
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: exchange of information, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, testing




L_2011170EN.01004301.xml










30.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 170/43







Corrigendum to Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority)
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 331 of 15 December 2010
)

On page 145, Article 9, Amendments to Directive 2006/48/EC, point (6):
for:






‘(6)


In Article 22, the following paragraph is added:

‘3.   In order to …’.’,





read:






‘(6)


In Article 22, the following paragraph is added:

‘6.   In order to …’.’.
Case T-338/11: Action brought on 30 June 2011 — Getty Images v OHIM (PHOTOS.COM)
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011252EN.01003901.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/39





Action brought on 30 June 2011 — Getty Images v OHIM (PHOTOS.COM)
(Case T-338/11)
2011/C 252/87
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Getty Images (US), Inc. (Seattle, United States) (represented by: P.G. Olson, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1831/2010-2; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PHOTOS.COM’ for goods and services in classes 9, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8549991

Decision of the Examiner: Partially refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly found that the mark applied for describes the goods/services for which registration was sought; (ii) erred by disregarding the fact that the applicant’s domain name registration corresponds to the mark applied for and has an effect on the assessment of the mark’s distinctive character; and (iii) wrongly assessed that the documentation was insufficient to document that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and based its decision on misunderstanding and misconception of the evidence presented. Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectation, as the Board of Appeal wrongly rejected the importance of the fact that OHIM has accepted the applicant’s trademark ‘PHOTOS.COM’ for similar goods and services in a prior application.
Corrigendum to authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections ( OJ C 187, 28.6.2011 )
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, Germany, Slovakia, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, mass media, minority language, rail transport








C_2011190EN.01003901.xml










30.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/39







Corrigendum to authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 187 of 28 June 2011
)
(2011/C 190/11)

On page 8:
for:


‘Reference number of State Aid: SA.322266 (11/N)’,

read:


‘Reference number of State Aid: SA.32266 (11/N)’.
Case C-271/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat (Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright and related rights — Public lending — Remuneration of authors — Adequate income)
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, copyright, interpretation of the law, pay








C_2011252EN.01000502.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat
(Case C-271/10) (1)

(Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright and related rights - Public lending - Remuneration of authors - Adequate income)
2011/C 252/07
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State van België

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA)

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61) (now Article 6(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/115/EC of 12 December 2006) — Remuneration of authors in the case of public lending — Sufficient remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which establishes a system under which the remuneration payable to authors in the event of public lending is calculated exclusively according to the number of borrowers registered with public establishments, on the basis of a flat-rate amount fixed per borrower and per year.


(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
Case T-341/08: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Agreement and withdrawal of application — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, trade-mark law








C_2011347EN.01003102.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/31





Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ)
(Case T-341/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Agreement and withdrawal of application - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 347/51
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hess Group AG (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, 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 intervening before the General Court: José Félix Coloma Navarro (Alvarado, Spain) (represented by: A. Fernández Lerroux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1030/2007-1) in invalidity proceedings between José Félix Coloma Navarro and Hess Group AG.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay one half of the defendant’s costs.






(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6231 — KKR/Capsugel)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, management, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2011190EN.01003801.xml










30.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/38







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6231 — KKR/Capsugel)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2011/C 190/10)


1.   

On 23 June 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 KKR & Co. LP (‘KKR’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Capsugel (‘Capsugel’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.



2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR: provision of a broad range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients,










—


for Capsugel: manufacturing of dosage delivery products and provision of related services to the pharmaceutical, over-the-counter and health and nutrition industries.






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.6231 — KKR/Capsugel, 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 T-252/10: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Cross Czech v Commission (Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure — Contractual and non-decision-making character of the letter — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: judicial proceedings, miscarriage of justice, restorative justice, right to justice, ruling








C_2011282EN.01001903.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/19





Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Cross Czech v Commission
(Case T-252/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure - Contractual and non-decision-making character of the letter - Inadmissibility)
2011/C 282/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cross Czech a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Schollaert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission letter of 12 March 2010, reference number INFSO-O2/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676, confirming the findings of financial audit report 09-BA74-006 concerning the financial statements declared by the applicant over the period 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 for three contracts concluded between the applicant and the Commission under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Cross Czech a.s. is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.