do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
2011/456/EU: Council Decision of 18 July 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia
Date: 2011-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Australia, Community certification, agreement (EU), mutual recognition principle, quality label, revision of an agreement, signature of an agreement








L_2011194EN.01000101.xml










26.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 194/1








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 18 July 2011
         
on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia
(2011/456/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia (1) (the Agreement on mutual recognition) entered into force on 1 January 1999 (2).












(2)


On 8 July 2002, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Australia with a view to amending the Agreement on mutual recognition. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia (the Agreement) in Brussels on 23 June 2009.












(3)


As a consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the European Union has replaced and succeeded the European Community.












(4)


The Agreement should be signed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia amending the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia (the Agreement) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 18 July 2011.


For the Council


The President

M. DOWGIELEWICZ
            





(1)  
            OJ L 229, 17.8.1998, p. 3.

(2)  
            OJ L 5, 9.1.1999, p. 74.

(3)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the Decision on its conclusion.
2011/459/EU: Council Decision of 18 July 2011 appointing Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal
Date: 2011-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, appointment of members, judge








L_2011194EN.01003101.xml










26.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 194/31








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 18 July 2011
         
appointing Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal
(2011/459/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the fourth paragraph of Article 257 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The terms of office of Mr Stéphane GERVASONI, Mr Paul J. MAHONEY and Mr Harissios TAGARAS, Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Civil Service Tribunal’) expire on 30 September 2011.












(2)


A public call for applications (1) was issued with a view to the appointment of three Judges to the Civil Service Tribunal for a period of 6 years.












(3)


The Committee set up by Article 3(3) of Annex I to the Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union met on 13 and 14 January, 3 and 4 March and 22 March 2011. Following its discussions, it delivered an opinion on the candidates’ suitability to perform the duties of a Judge of the Civil Service Tribunal to which it appended a list of candidates having the most appropriate high-level experience.












(4)


Accordingly it is appropriate to appoint three of the persons included on that list as Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal, for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2017, ensuring a balanced composition of the Civil Service Tribunal on as broad a geographical basis as possible from among nationals of the Member States and with respect to the national legal systems represented,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for the period from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2017:






—


Mr René BARENTS,










—


Mr Kieran BRADLEY,










—


Mr Ezio PERILLO.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 18 July 2011.


For the Council


The President

M. DOWGIELEWICZ
            





(1)  
            OJ C 163, 23.6.2010, p. 13.
Case C-381/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Manuel Mesa Bertrán and Cristina Farrán Morenilla v Novacaixagalicia
Date: 2011-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: credit institution, interest, real estate credit








C_2011290EN.01000301.xml










1.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 290/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Manuel Mesa Bertrán and Cristina Farrán Morenilla v Novacaixagalicia
(Case C-381/11)
2011/C 290/04
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Manuel Mesa Bertrán and Cristina Farrán Morenilla

Defendant: Novacaixagalicia

Questions referred







1.


If a credit institution offers a client with whom it has previously signed a mortgage loan contract an interest rate swap arrangement to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on that loan, must this be regarded as investment advice within the meaning of point [(4)] of Article 4(1) of the MiFID Directive [Directive 2004/39/EC] (1)?










2.


Must omission of the suitability test provided for in Article 19(4) of the MiFID Directive with regard to a retail investor give rise to fundamental nullity of the interest rate swap arrangement entered into between the investor and the advising credit institution?










3.


In the event that the service provided in the terms described is not regarded as investment advice, does the mere fact of purchasing a complex financial instrument, into which category falls an interest rate swap arrangement, without the appropriateness test provided for in Article 19(5) of the MiFID Directive being carried out, for reasons imputable to the investment institution, give rise to fundamental nullity of the purchase contract concluded with the same credit institution?










4.


Under Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive, does the mere fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to a mortgage loan constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligation to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by the said Article 19 which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?










5.


In order to enable the obligations laid down in Article 19 of the MiFID Directive to be excluded, is it necessary for the financial product to which the financial instrument offered is linked to be subject to statutory investor-protection standards similar to those laid down in that directive?






(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.
Case T-378/11: Action brought on 18 July 2011 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (MEDINET)
Date: 2011-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011269EN.01005501.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/55





Action brought on 18 July 2011 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (MEDINET)
(Case T-378/11)
2011/C 269/121
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 10 May 2011 in Case R 1598/2010-4 relating to Community trade mark application No 8 786 485;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘MEDINET’ for goods in Class 33 — application No 8 786 485

Decision of the Examiner: the registration of the mark with seniority of earlier national and international marks was refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 34, 75 and 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal (i) refused to register the seniority in an unlawful manner; (ii) did not examine the applicant’s submissions in respect of Board of Appeal decisions regarding claims of priority and seniority; and (iii) did not fix a date for oral proceedings.