do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-451/10: Order of the General Court of 21 July 2011 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission (Action for damages — Common agricultural policy — Standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market — Commission’s supervisory power — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action obviously lacking any basis in law)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EC action to establish liability, European Commission, damage, indemnification








C_2011282EN.01002102.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/21





Order of the General Court of 21 July 2011 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission
(Case T-451/10) (1)

(Action for damages - Common agricultural policy - Standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market - Commission’s supervisory power - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action obviously lacking any basis in law)
2011/C 282/43
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH (Hörsching, Germany) (represented by: G. Lehner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

Re:

Action seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the lack of supervision, by the Commission, of the conditions for implementing standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market, in this case maize held by the Hungarian intervention agency

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as obviously lacking any basis in law.










2.


Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6295 — CVC/Ande/Delachaux) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment, merger control, processing industry, shareholder








C_2011215EN.01003201.xml










21.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/32





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6295 — CVC/Ande/Delachaux)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 215/14






1.


On 12 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 undertaking(s) CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (Luxemburg) and Ande Investissements SA (Luxembourg) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Delachaux SA (France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS: providing investment advice to and/or managing investments on behalf of investment funds (the ‘CVC Funds’). The CVC Funds hold controlling interests in a number of companies in various industries including chemicals, utilities, manufacturing, retailing and distribution, primarily in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region,










—


for undertaking Ande Investissements SA: shareholding acquisitions, administration, management and development. Currently, Ande mainly holds and manages the André Delachaux family's shareholdings in the Delachaux group,










—


for undertaking Delachaux SA: manufacture and production of rail fastening and welding systems, electric power and data transmission systems, magnetics, cabling and chrome metal.














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.6295 — CVC/Ande/Delachaux, 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’).
Action brought on 21 July 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway (Case E-9/11)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, financial market, free movement of capital, infringement of EU law, ownership, right of establishment








C_2011294EN.01000801.xml










6.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/8





Action brought on 21 July 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway
(Case E-9/11)
2011/C 294/08
An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 July 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Florence Simonetti Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:






1.


By maintaining in force such restrictions on the rights of persons and undertakings established in EEA States to own holdings and exercise voting rights in regulated markets in Norway as provided for in Sections 35(1), (2) and (3) and 36 of the Act of 29 June 2007 No 74 on Regulated Markets (the Stock Exchange Act) and Sections 5-3(1), (2) and (3) and 5-4 of the Act of 5 July 2002 on Registration of Financial Instruments (the Securities Depositories Act), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 40 EEA.










2.


The Kingdom of Norway bear the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


Norwegian legislation restricts ownership of and voting rights in financial services infrastructure institutions. As a main rule, the Stock Exchange Act prohibits the holding of more than 20 % of the shares in stock exchanges, as well as the voting for more than 20 % of the total voting capital or 30 % of the votes represented at the general meeting. Corresponding rules with respect to securities depositories are laid down in the Securities Depositories Act.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the contested legislation is incompatible both with the freedom of establishment under Article 31 EEA and with the freedom movement of capital under Article 40 EEA.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits in particular that the contested legislation is unnecessary to promote the well-functioning and efficiency of the financial markets and to inspire confidence among market operators in the independence and impartiality of the institutions. It argues that alternative, less restrictive measures are available that would be sufficiently effective.
Case F-70/11: Action brought on 21 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Eurostat, civil servant, staff assessment








C_2011282EN.01005203.xml










24.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/52





Action brought on 21 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-70/11)
2011/C 282/100
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.

Form of order sought by the applicant







—


Annul the applicant’s appraisal report for 2008, that is to say, the part of the report drawn up by EUROSTAT for that period;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-459/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid for a training project concerning certain jobs in the new DHL centre at Leipzig-Halle airport — Action for annulment against the decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market — Examination of the need for the aid — Failure to take into account the incentive effects of the aid and its positive external effects on the choice of the site)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, appeal, control of State aid, equal treatment, postal service, transport company








C_2011269EN.01001702.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/17





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission
(Case C-459/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for a training project concerning certain jobs in the new DHL centre at Leipzig-Halle airport - Action for annulment against the decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market - Examination of the need for the aid - Failure to take into account the incentive effects of the aid and its positive external effects on the choice of the site)
2011/C 269/28
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Freistaat Sachsen, Land Sachsen-Anhalt (represented by: A. Rosenfeld, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case T-396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action seeking partial annulment of Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 regarding the State aid which Germany intends to grant to DHL (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 31) — Aid for training — Decision declaring part of the aid incompatible with the common market — Incorrect examination of the need for the aid — Disregard of the positive external effects of the aid and of its incentive effects on the choice of the site

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismissses the appeal;










2.


Orders Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Case C-284/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica de España SA v Administración del Estado (Directive 97/13/EC — Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Article 6 — Interpretation — National legislation imposing an annual fee calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, competition, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, principle of subsidiarity, right of establishment, telecommunications, trade licence








C_2011269EN.01001602.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/16





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica de España SA v Administración del Estado
(Case C-284/10) (1)

(Directive 97/13/EC - Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services - Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - Article 6 - Interpretation - National legislation imposing an annual fee calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income)
2011/C 269/26
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Telefónica de España SA

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (in particular, Article 6 thereof) (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Imposition of financial payments above and beyond those authorised by the directive and for a purpose not provided for therein

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State introducing a fee imposed on holders of general authorisations, calculated annually and on the basis of the gross operating income of the chargeable operators, which seeks to cover the administrative costs relating to the issue, management, control and enforcement of those authorisations, to the extent that the combined revenue received by that Member State by way of such a fee does not exceed all of those administrative costs, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Case T-390/11: Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Bornemann (EVONIK)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011269EN.01005701.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/57





Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Bornemann (EVONIK)
(Case T-390/11)
2011/C 269/124
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Johann Heinrich Bornemann GmbH — Geschäftsbereich Kunststofftechnik Obernkirchen (Obernkirchen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant's decision (of the Second Board of Appeal) of 19 April 2011 (Case R 1802/2010-2) in so far as it denies international mark No 918 426‘EVONIK’ protection within the European Union;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EVONIK’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — International registration number 918 426.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Johann Heinrich Bornemann GmbH — Geschäftsbereich Kunststofftechnik Obernkirchen.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘EVO’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 37 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 since, (i) there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks, (ii) the Board of Appeal based its decision on grounds on which the applicant could not voice its opinion, and (iii) the Board of Appeal based its decision on arguments which were not raised by the opponent in the proceedings.
Corrigendum to publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ C 87, 16.4.2009 )
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, animal nutrition, cows’ milk cheese, dairy industry, designation of origin, hard cheese, labelling, location of production, milk product, product designation








C_2011215EN.01003401.xml










21.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/34





Corrigendum to publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 87 of 16 April 2009
)
2011/C 215/16
On page 16, point 3.2, first subparagraph:
for:
‘Parmigiano Reggiano is a hard cheese made from raw cow's milk, partially skimmed by natural surface skimming’,
read:
‘Parmigiano Reggiano is a hard cheese, cooked and slowly matured cheese, made from raw cow's milk, partially skimmed by natural surface skimming’.
On page 17, point 3.5, last subparagraph:
for:

‘After the minimum maturing period, tests are carried out to check compliance with production specifications’,

read:

‘After the minimum maturing period, examination by experts is carried out to check compliance with production specifications’.

On page 17, point 3.5, second subparagraph:

for:

‘Following coagulation, obtained exclusively by the use of calf whey, the curd is broken up and cooked’,

read:

‘Following coagulation, obtained exclusively by the use of calf rennet, the curd is broken up and cooked’.
On page 18, point 3.6, third subparagraph:
for:

‘Portions of Parmigiano Reggiano may be packaged in the year in which they are prepared’,

read:

‘Portions of Parmigiano Reggiano may be packaged in the retail outlet in which they are prepared’.
Case C-252/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (Appeal — Public procurement — European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) — Call for tenders relating to the ‘SafeSeaNet’ application — Decision rejecting a tenderer’s bid — Contract award criteria — Sub-criteria — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom of communication, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press








C_2011269EN.01001502.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/15





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
(Case C-252/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public procurement - European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) - Call for tenders relating to the ‘SafeSeaNet’ application - Decision rejecting a tenderer’s bid - Contract award criteria - Sub-criteria - Obligation to state reasons)
2011/C 269/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: J. Menze, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaaten)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2010 in Case T-70/05 (Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA) in so far it dismissed the appellant’s application for the annulment of the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (‘EMSA’) of 6 January 2005 rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant in a tendering procedure relating to the validation of the SafeSeaNet application and its further development

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
Case C-518/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Carrying out real estate activities)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Portugal, access to a profession, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, freedom to provide services, provision of services, real estate business, restriction on competition, right of establishment








C_2011269EN.01000701.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/7





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-518/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Carrying out real estate activities)
2011/C 269/10
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I Rogalski and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, and N. Ruiz, advogado)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Carrying out real estate activities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that,






—


by permitting activities of real estate brokers to be carried out only within real estate agencies;










—


by requiring real estate brokerages and real estate agents established in other Member States to cover their professional liability by taking out insurance which complies with Portuguese legislation;










—


by requiring real estate brokerages established in other Member States to hold positive equity within the meaning of that legislation, and










—


by making real estate brokerages and real estate agents established in other Member States subject to the full disciplinary control of the Instituto de Construção e do Imobiliário IP,




the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU, and






—


by requiring real estate brokerages to carry out exclusively real estate brokerage activities, with the exception of the management of real property on behalf of third parties, and










—


by requiring real estate agents to carry out exclusively real estate agency activities,




the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.