do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6196 — Lenovo/Medion)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control








C_2011258EN.01000201.xml










2.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6196 — Lenovo/Medion)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 258/02
On 26 July 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 32011M6196. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-453/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Timehouse GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2011-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, miscarriage of justice, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011340EN.01001001.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/10





Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Timehouse GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-453/11 P)
2011/C 340/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Timehouse GmbH (represented by: V. Knies, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and annul the decision of the First Board of appeal of 11 March 2010 in Case R 0492/2009-1 and order the respondent to pay the costs;










—


in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rehear and decide in the light of the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union and order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court of the European Union misapplied the material criterion for assessing distinctive character in accordance with Article 7(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of the overall appearance of the contested trade mark 7 378 888 for the goods to be registered ‘jewellery; clocks and watches and chronometric instruments’, in that it based its decision solely on an examination of the lack of distinctive character of the individual components of the mark. By drawing conclusions from the (supposed) lack of distinctive character of the individual components of the mark to the lack of distinctive character of the mark applied for as regards its overall appearance, the contested decision was based on the impermissible presumption/conclusion that a mark whose individual components do not have distinctive character cannot have distinctive character in the combination of the components. Since the mark as a whole has distinctive character, however, the decision of the Board of Appeal that was upheld by the General Court was itself wrong.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-461/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm
Date: 2011-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, free movement of workers, residence permit








C_2011340EN.01001002.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm
(Case C-461/11)
2011/C 340/17
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski

Defendant: Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

Question referred

Can the requirement for Swedish residence in Paragraph 4 of the skuldsaneringslagen (2006:548) (Law on debt relief) be regarded as being liable to prevent or deter a worker from leaving Sweden to exercise his right to freedom of movement and thus be regarded as running counter to the provision on the freedom of movement for workers within the Union provided for in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2011-09-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Thailand, anti-dumping measure, import (EU), maize








C_2011258EN.01001101.xml










2.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/11





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2011/C 258/06
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European 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)





Certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels


Thailand


Anti-dumping duty


Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 14) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 847/2009 (OJ L 246, 18.9.2009, p. 1)


21.6.2012






(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.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 1,50 % on 1 September 2011 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-09-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011258EN.01001001.xml










2.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/10





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
1,50 % on 1 September 2011
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 September 2011
2011/C 258/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4285




JPY


Japanese yen


110,08




DKK


Danish krone


7,4500




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88120




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0960




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1417




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6850




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,154




HUF


Hungarian forint


273,11




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1442




RON


Romanian leu


4,2330




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4584




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3349




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3954




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,1209




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6793




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7208




KRW


South Korean won


1 519,31




ZAR


South African rand


10,0219




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,1138




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4845




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 160,70




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2384




PHP


Philippine peso


60,503




RUB


Russian rouble


41,4130




THB


Thai baht


42,826




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2895




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6351




INR


Indian rupee


65,8360






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-456/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH
Date: 2011-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, international competition, ruling








C_2011331EN.01001202.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH
(Case C-456/11)
2011/C 331/20
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG

Defendant: Samskip GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers in principle those judgments which are restricted to the finding that the procedural requirements for admissibility are not satisfied (so-called ‘procedural judgments’)?










2.


Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers a final judgment by which a court is found to have no international jurisdiction by virtue of an agreement conferring jurisdiction?










3.


In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the principle of further effects (Case C-145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645), are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted to the effect that each Member State is required to recognise the judgments of a court or tribunal of another Member State on the effectiveness of an agreement conferring jurisdiction between the parties, where the finding as to the effectiveness of the agreement conferring jurisdiction has become final under the national law of the first court, even where that decision forms part of a judgment on a procedural matter dismissing the action?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case T-121/11: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2011 — Versus Bank v Council
Date: 2011-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, human rights, political rights








C_2011319EN.01002802.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/28





Order of the General Court of 2 September 2011 — Versus Bank v Council
(Case T-121/11) (1)

2011/C 319/59
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.