do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-452/10: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — ClientEarth v Council (Action for annulment — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, access to EU information, exchange of information, operation of the Institutions








C_2011319EN.01002202.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/22





Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — ClientEarth v Council
(Case T-452/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)
2011/C 319/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Hockman QC, and P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and B. Driessen, Agents)

Intervening parties on behalf of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Vang and S. Juul Jørgensen Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by H. Leppo and M. Pere, Agents); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by K. Petkovska, A. Falk, S. Johannesson and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision of 26 July 2010 refusing to grant the applicant full access to an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service (Document No 6865/09) on the European Parliament’s draft amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.










2.


ClientEarth shall bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.










3.


The Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6308 — VFC/Timberland)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, footwear industry, merger control, textile industry








C_2011262EN.01000101.xml










6.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6308 — VFC/Timberland)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 262/01
On 29 August 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 32011M6308. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-474/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vineyard








C_2011319EN.01002401.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/24





Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)
(Case T-474/11)
2011/C 319/51
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG (Cochem, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viñedos Emiliana, SA (Santiago, Chile)

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 22 June 2011 in Case R 637/2010-2;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs;










—


In the alternative, stay the proceedings until delivery of a legally binding decision in the invalidity proceedings pending before OHIM concerning filing reference 000005716 C.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Igama’ for goods in Class 33.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viñedos Emiliana, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘GAMMA’ for goods in Class 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Case C-163/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello (Member of the European Parliament — Protocol on Privileges and Immunities — Article 8 — Criminal proceedings for the offence of making false accusations — Statements made outside the precincts of the Parliament — Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties — Immunity — Conditions)
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, defamation, parliamentary immunity








C_2011311EN.01001101.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/11





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello
(Case C-163/10) (1)

(Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on Privileges and Immunities - Article 8 - Criminal proceedings for the offence of making false accusations - Statements made outside the precincts of the Parliament - Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties - Immunity - Conditions)
2011/C 311/14
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Isernia

Party in the main proceedings

Aldo Patriciello

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Isernia — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with slander following a false accusation levelled at a representative of the forces of law and order — Notion of the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted to the effect that a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
Case C-398/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet (Refusal to reimburse a tax paid in error — Unjust enrichment arising from the link between the introduction of that tax and the abolition of other taxes)
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: tax collection, tax on consumption, tax rebate








C_2011311EN.01000701.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/7





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-398/09) (1)

(Refusal to reimburse a tax paid in error - Unjust enrichment arising from the link between the introduction of that tax and the abolition of other taxes)
2011/C 311/08
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 Comateb and Others and of the principles of Community law governing unjust enrichment — Refusal to reimburse a national tax held to be incompatible with Community law, on grounds of unjust enrichment arising from the direct link between the introduction of the unlawful tax and the abolishment of other taxes charged on another basis — Non-reimbursement having the effect of placing product importers at a disadvantage in relation to purchasers of similar domestic products due to the proportionally greater payment of the unlawful tax by the former as compared to the latter.

Operative part of the judgment

The rules of European Union law on recovery of sums wrongly paid must be interpreted to the effect that recovery of sums wrongly paid can give rise to unjust enrichment only when the amounts wrongly paid by a taxpayer under a tax levied in a Member State in breach of European Union law have been passed on direct to the purchaser. Consequently, European Union law precludes a Member State from refusing reimbursement of a tax wrongfully levied on the ground that the amounts wrongly paid by the taxpayer have been set off by a saving made as a result of the concomitant abolition of other levies, since such a set-off cannot be regarded, from the point of view of European Union law, as an unjust enrichment as regards that tax.


(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6337 — CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing/KSM Castings) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry, miscellaneous industries








C_2011262EN.01001401.xml










6.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6337 — CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing/KSM Castings)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 262/11






1.


On 26 August 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 CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing (‘Dicastal’, China), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CITIC Group (‘CITIC Group’, China), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of KSM Castings Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and of KSM Castings Holding GmbH (collectively ‘KSM’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking CITIC Group: financial services, real estate, civil infrastructure, engineering, contracting, energy & resources, manufacturing, IT, trade and services,










—


for undertaking KSM: development, manufacture and sale of light metal (primarily aluminium) castings, focusing on powertrain and body components as well as safety critical chassis parts.














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.6337 — CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing/KSM Castings, 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-192/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, human rights, political rights








C_2011319EN.01002804.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/28





Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council
(Case T-192/11) (1)

2011/C 319/61
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6141 — China National Agrochemical Corporation/Koor Industries/Makhteshim Agan Industries)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, plant health product








C_2011262EN.01001301.xml










6.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6141 — China National Agrochemical Corporation/Koor Industries/Makhteshim Agan Industries)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 262/10






1.


On 29 August 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 China National Agrochemical Corporation (‘CNAC’, China), belonging to China National Chemical Corporation (‘ChemChina’, a company which is wholly owned by the Central Chinese Government), and Koor Industries (‘Koor’, Israel), belonging to IDB Group, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Makhteshim Agan Industries Ltd. (‘MAI’, Israel) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CNAC: manufacture and sale of active ingredients and formulated products used for crop protection products,










—


for Koor: investments in sectors such as communication, finance and insurance, heavy industry and transportation, retail, real estate and technology,










—


for MAI: manufacture and distribution of branded off-patent crop protection and non-agricultural crop products.














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.6141 — China National Agrochemical Corporation/Koor Industries/Makhteshim Agan Industries, 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-292/09: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Mugraby v Council and Commission (Action for failure to act — Failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt measures against the Republic of Lebanon — Alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon — Manifest inadmissibility — Actions for damages — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Lebanon, association agreement (EU), fundamental rights, human rights








C_2011319EN.01002002.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/20





Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Mugraby v Council and Commission
(Case T-292/09) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt measures against the Republic of Lebanon - Alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon - Manifest inadmissibility - Actions for damages - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
2011/C 319/42
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Muhamad Mugraby (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: J. Regouw and L. Spigt, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, B. Driessen and E. Finnegan, Agents) and European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Re:

Action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully omitted to take a decision on the applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against the Republic of Lebanon on account of the alleged violation by the latter of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement concluded between European Community and its Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon of the other part, and an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result those institutions’ failure to act.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed;










2.


Mr Muhamad Mugraby is to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 631/2009 of 22 July 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, amending Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC ( OJ L 195, 25.7.2009 )
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common transport policy, pedestrian, road safety, transport accident, two-wheeled vehicle




L_2011229EN.01001601.xml










6.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 229/16







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 631/2009 of 22 July 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, amending Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 195 of 25 July 2009
)

On page 20, Annex, Part II, Chapter 4: Upper legform to bonnet leading edge test, Figure 4 is replaced as follows:

Figure 4


Velocity of upper legform to bonnet leading edge tests with respect to vehicle shape




On page 42, Annex, Part IV, Chapter IV: Upper legform to Frontal Protection System Leading Edge test, Figure 4 is replaced as follows:

Figure 4


Velocity of upper legform to frontal protection system leading edge
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6292 — Securitas/Niscayah Group)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, security services








C_2011262EN.01000201.xml










6.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6292 — Securitas/Niscayah Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 262/03
On 2 August 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 32011M6292. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-122/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Yao N'Dré v Council
Date: 2011-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, human rights, political rights








C_2011319EN.01002803.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/28





Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Yao N'Dré v Council
(Case T-122/11) (1)

2011/C 319/60
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.