do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-222/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — ratiopharm v OHIM — Nycomed (ZUFAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZUFAL — Earlier Community word mark ZURCAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, trade-mark law








C_2011269EN.01004803.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/48





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — ratiopharm v OHIM — Nycomed (ZUFAL)
(Case T-222/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZUFAL - Earlier Community word mark ZURCAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2011/C 269/107
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: A. Ferchland, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2010 (Case R 874/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nycomed GmbH and ratiopharm GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ratiopharm GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
Case T-189/06: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Fines — Leniency Notice)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011269EN.01004002.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/40





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Arkema France v Commission
(Case T-189/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Leniency Notice)
2011/C 269/87
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Arkema France SA (Colombes, France) (represented initially by A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and P. Geffriaud, and subsequently by S. Sorinas Jimeno and E. Jégou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault and O. Beynet, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P.J. Van Nuffel and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Arkema France SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
Case T-190/06: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Presumption of innocence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Equal treatment — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege — Principle of sound administration — Legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Fines)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical industry, chemical salt, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, fine, oxide, price agreement








C_2011269EN.01004003.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/40





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
(Case T-190/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines)
2011/C 269/88
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery, A. Noël-Baron and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault and O. Beynet, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P.J. Van Nuffel and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and, in the alternative, for amendment of Article 2(i) of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
Case T-187/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Trabelsi and Others v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), crime against property, discrimination based on disability, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2011282EN.01002202.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/22





Order of the President of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Trabelsi and Others v Council
(Case T-187/11 R)
(Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - Lack of urgency)
2011/C 282/46
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Mohamed Trabelsi (Paris, France); Ines Lejri (Paris); Moncef Trabelsi (Paris); Selima Trabelsi (Paris); and Tarek Trabelsi (Paris) (represented initially by A. Metzker, and subsequently by A. Tekari, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and G. Étienne, Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures and for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case T-196/10: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, pharmacy, registered trade mark








C_2011282EN.01004901.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/49





Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)
(Case T-196/10) (1)

2011/C 282/90
Language of the case: German
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6213 — Westfield/CPPIB/APG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, real property, retail trade








C_2011208EN.01002201.xml










14.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 208/22





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6213 — Westfield/CPPIB/APG)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 208/08






1.


On 7 July 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 undertakings Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (‘CPPIB’) and APG Algemene Pensioen Groep N.V. (‘APG’), together with Westfield Holdings Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Westfield Group (‘Westfield’), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of companies belonging to Westfield (‘the Target’) which control a property known as Westfield Stratford City by way of acquisition of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CPPIB: professional investment management organisation investing the assets of the Canada Pension Plan,










—


APG: a pension administration organisation that specialises in the field of collective pensions in the public sector,










—


Westfield: real estate services,










—


the Target: controls Westfield Stratford City, a retail complex presently under development located in Stratford, UK.














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.6213 — Westfield/CPPIB/APG, 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 C-464/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — État belge v Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(4) — Exemption — Article 13(B)(f) — Gambling — Services provided by a commission agent ‘buraliste’ acting in his own name but on behalf of a principal operating a business of taking bets)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, VAT, harmonisation of standards, interpretation of the law, tax








C_2011269EN.01001703.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/17





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — État belge v Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA
(Case C-464/10) (1)

(Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(4) - Exemption - Article 13(B)(f) - Gambling - Services provided by a commission agent ‘buraliste’ acting in his own name but on behalf of a principal operating a business of taking bets)
2011/C 269/29
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: État belge

Defendants: Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons — Interpretation of Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f), of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1) — tax exemption in respect of services supplied by a commission agent acting in its own name, but on behalf of a principal who organises supply of services referred to in that directive.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as an economic operator acts in his own name, but on behalf of an undertaking carrying on a bet-taking business, in the collection of bets covered by the exemption from value added tax under Article 13(B)(f), that latter undertaking is to be considered, in accordance with Article 6(4), to provide that operator with a supply of bets coming under that exemption.


(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6304 — Carlyle/Gores Broadband) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2011208EN.01002301.xml










14.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 208/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6304 — Carlyle/Gores Broadband)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 208/09






1.


On 6 July 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 Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, United States of America) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Gores Broadband SA (‘Gores Broadband’, France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Carlyle: global alternative asset manager focusing on aerospace and defense, financial services, infrastructure, telecom and media, consumer and retail, healthcare, real estate, transportation, energy and power, industry, and technology and business services,










—


Gores Broadband: French holding company of Sagemcom SAS, which specializes in broadband terminals and energy solutions, produces printing and imaging technologies, residential terminals and set-top-boxes, and products and solutions in the field of energy and telecom.














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.6304 — Carlyle/Gores Broadband, 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 T-357/02 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the authorities of the Free State of Saxony — Aid for coaching, participation in fairs, cooperation and design promotion — Decision declaring the aid scheme in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market — Aid scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises — Failure to exercise discretion — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, motor vehicle industry, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2011269EN.01004001.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/40





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission
(Case T-357/02 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the authorities of the Free State of Saxony - Aid for coaching, participation in fairs, cooperation and design promotion - Decision declaring the aid scheme in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market - Aid scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises - Failure to exercise discretion - Obligation to state reasons)
2011/C 269/86
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the second paragraph of Article 2 and of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/226/EC of 24 September 2002 on an aid scheme which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement — ‘Guidelines on assistance for SMEs — Improving business efficiency in Saxony’: Subprogrammes 1 (Coaching), 4 (Participation in fairs), 5 (Cooperation) and 7 (Design promotion) (OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission both before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.






(1)  OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.
Case C-196/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 2203 and 2208 — Malt beer base intended for use in the production of a mixed drink)
Date: 2011-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, beer, food technology, interpretation of the law








C_2011269EN.01001501.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/15





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
(Case C-196/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 2203 and 2208 - Malt beer base intended for use in the production of a mixed drink)
2011/C 269/23
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1) and (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1) — Malt beer base with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % obtained from brewed beer which has been specially clarified and subjected to ultrafiltration and which is to be used in the making of a mixed beer drink — Classification under heading 2203 or heading 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature?

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that a liquid described as a ‘malt beer base’, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % and obtained from brewed beer which has been clarified and then subjected to ultrafiltration, by which the concentration of ingredients such as bitter substances and proteins has been reduced, must be classified under heading 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to that regulation, as amended.


(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.