do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps Declaration of the European Parliament of 29 September 2011 on the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: economic and social cohesion, international voluntary worker, social participation








CE2013056EN.01012201.xml










26.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 56/122





Thursday 29 September 2011Establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
P7_TA(2011)0432
Declaration of the European Parliament of 29 September 2011 on the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
2013/C 56 E/16

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in Article 214(5), provides that: ‘In order to establish a framework for joint contributions from young Europeans to the humanitarian aid operations of the Union, a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps shall be set up’,










B.


whereas the Commission issued a Communication on 23 November 2010 on ‘How to express EU citizens’ solidarity through volunteering: First reflections on a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps (EVHAC)’,










C.


whereas 2011 is the European Year of Volunteering,










1.


Declares that humanitarian action is a fundamental expression of the European value of solidarity;










2.


Stresses that the long European tradition of volunteering is an indispensable part of our common European identity;










3.


Stresses that the EVHAC will bring added value to European citizens by encouraging their active participation and contributing to a more cohesive society;










4.


Calls on the European Parliament and the Council to determine the rules and procedures for the operation of the Corps in response to disasters and to work on setting up the Corps promptly;










5.


Considers that the key components of the Voluntary Service should be the identification and selection of volunteers and their training and deployment;










6.


Emphasises that the Voluntary Service should be demand-driven and needs-based and that security must be of paramount importance;










7.


Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories (1), to the Commission, the Council and the parliaments of the Member States.






(1)  The list of signatories is published in Annex 1 to the Minutes of 29 September 2011 (P7_PV(2011)09-29(ANN1)).
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, air transport, inland transport, public service, transport regulations








C_2011285EN.01000901.xml










29.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/9





Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
2011/C 285/05






Member State


France




Route concerned


Brest (Guipavas)–Ouessant




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


1 April 2012




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


Arrêté du 6 juillet 2011 relatif aux obligations de service public imposées sur les services aériens réguliers entre Brest (Guipavas) et Ouessant (Decree of 6 July 2011 on the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between Brest (Guipavas) and Ouessant)
NOR: DEVA1121291A
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
For further information please contact:





Direction générale de l'aviation civile




DTA/SDT/T2




50 rue Henry Farman




75720 Paris Cedex 15




FRANCE




Tel. +33 158094321




E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr
Case T-415/09: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM — Vallis K. — Vallis A. (FISHBONE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE — Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Consideration of additional evidence — Statement of reasons — Proof of genuine use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — First subparagraph and second subparagraph, heading (a), of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2), (3) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2011331EN.01001802.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/18





Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM — Vallis K. — Vallis A. (FISHBONE)
(Case T-415/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE - Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Consideration of additional evidence - Statement of reasons - Proof of genuine use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - First subparagraph and second subparagraph, heading (a), of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2), (3) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2011/C 331/33
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG, formerly New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vallis K. — Vallis A. & Co. OE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Kilimiri, V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, lawyers, and H.J. O’Neill, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 1051/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Vallis K. — Vallis A. & Co. OE and New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.
Case T-529/11: Action brought on 29 September 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011362EN.01001901.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/19





Action brought on 29 September 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)
(Case T-529/11)
2011/C 362/28
Language in which the application was lodged: English

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: Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 20 June 2011 in case R 1101/2010-2; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Impulso creador’, for various goods and services among which services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6146187

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2633891 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 4438206 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not correctly consider the different overall impression of the conflicting trademarks.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011285EN.01000201.xml










29.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 September 2011
2011/C 285/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3631




JPY


Japanese yen


104,22




DKK


Danish krone


7,4410




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87175




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1930




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2205




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8150




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,523




HUF


Hungarian forint


290,38




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4313




RON


Romanian leu


4,3260




TRY


Turkish lira


2,5178




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3775




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3972




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6251




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7330




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7502




KRW


South Korean won


1 589,45




ZAR


South African rand


10,7476




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,7154




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4925




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 224,27




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2999




PHP


Philippine peso


59,175




RUB


Russian rouble


43,4495




THB


Thai baht


42,256




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4634




MXN


Mexican peso


18,2608




INR


Indian rupee


66,4650






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-442/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana — Action for failure to act — Failure by the Commission to define its position — Obligation to act)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, air transport, control of State aid








C_2011331EN.01001603.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/16





Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-442/07) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Aid granted by the Italian authorities to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana - Action for failure to act - Failure by the Commission to define its position - Obligation to act)
2011/C 331/29
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and E. Righini, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Air One SpA (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, C. Santacroce and G. Belotti, lawyers)

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to define its position on the applicant’s complaints concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Italian Republic to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana and, second, an alleged infringement of competition law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of (i) the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd, (ii) the compensation granted following the attacks of 11 September, complained of in the letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005 sent to the Commission by Ryanair, and (iii) the reductions in airport charges at hub airports, from which Alitalia, in particular, is claimed to have benefited, complained of in those letters of 3 November and 13 December 2005;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each of the parties, including Air One SpA, to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, public service, transport regulations








C_2011285EN.01001001.xml










29.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/10





Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
2011/C 285/06






Member State


France




Route concerned


Brest (Guipavas)–Ouessant




Period of validity of the contract


From 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2016




Deadline for submission of applications and tenders








—


for applications (first step): 7 November 2011 (12 p.m., local time)










—


for tenders (second step): date indicated in the specific rules which will be sent to applicants invited to submit a tender








Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







Conseil général du Finistère




Direction des déplacements




8 rue de Kerhuel




29196 Quimper




FRANCE




For administrative questions:





Mr Eric DELARBRE




8 rue de Kerhuel




29196 Quimper Cedex




FRANCE




Tel. +33 298762455




E-mail: eric.delarbre@cg29.fr




For technical questions:





Mr Stéphane MARSILLE




8 rue de Kerhuel




29196 Quimper Cedex




FRANCE




Tel. +33 298762052




E-mail: stephane.marsille@cg29.fr
Case C-510/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-151/07: Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV v European Commission
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, equal treatment, offence, penal institution, research








C_2011362EN.01001302.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/13





Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-151/07: Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV v European Commission
(Case C-510/11 P)
2011/C 362/20
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV (represented by: T. Vinje, Solicitor, D. Paemen, Advocaat, A. Tomtsis, Dikigoros, A. Morfey, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside in whole the Judgment of the General Court;










—


annul Article 2(2) of the Decision in so far as it imposes a fine on Kone Oyj and Kone GmbH, and impose either no fine or a fine at a lower amount than determined in the 21 February 2007 Decision of the Commission relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators) (the ‘Decision’);










—


annul Article 2(4) of the Commission Decision in so far as it imposes a fine on Kone Oyj and Kone BV, and set the fine at a lower amount than determined in the Commission Decision; and










—


order the Commission to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:






 


As regards the infringement in Germany, the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission did not manifestly exceed its margin of appreciation in assessing Kone's contribution to the opening of the investigation and the finding of the infringement in the Decision. The General Court's error of law meant that Kone was wrongly disqualified from immunity under the 2002 Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the ‘2002 Notice’).










 


The General Court also erred in law in holding that the Commission's breach of the 2002 Notice did not violate the principle of legitimate expectations.










 


As regards the infringement in the Netherlands, the General Court erred in law in upholding the Commission's refusal to grant Kone any reduction in the fine under the 2002 Notice, because of Kone's characterisation of the information it provided in its leniency application. As a result, the GC upheld the Commission's decision insofar as it refused to grant Kone any reduction in the fine for the Netherlands cartel.










 


The General Court also erred in law in holding that the Commission did not breach the principle of equal treatment in concluding that Kone's submissions in respect of the Dutch cartel were not comparable to ThyssenKrupp's submissions in respect of the cartel in Belgium.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, public service, transport regulations








C_2011285EN.01001101.xml










29.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/11





Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
2011/C 285/07






Member State


France




Route concerned


Brest (Guipavas)–Ouessant




Period of validity of the contract


From 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2016




Deadline for submission of applications and tenders








—


for applications (1st step): 7 November 2011 (12 p.m., local time)










—


for tenders (2nd step): Date indicated in the specific rules which will be sent to applicants invited to submit a tender








Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







Conseil général du Finistère




Direction des déplacements




8 rue de Kerhuel




29196 Quimper




FRANCE




For administrative questions:





Mr Eric DELARBRE




8 rue de Kerhuel




29196 Quimper Cedex




FRANCE




Tel. +33 298762455




E-mail: eric.delarbre@cg29.fr




For technical questions:





Mr Stéphane MARSILLE




8 rue de Kerhuel




29196 Quimper Cedex




FRANCE




Tel. +33 298762052




E-mail: stephane.marsille@cg29.fr
Case C-520/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Arkema SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — European market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical industry, control of restrictive practices, liability, parent company, restriction on competition, subsidiary








C_2011340EN.01000201.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/2





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Arkema SA v European Commission
(Case C-520/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - European market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons)
2011/C 340/02
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Arkema SA (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-168/05 Arkema v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Arkema’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringements of the principle of equal treatment and the right to a fair hearing — Failure to have regard to the scope of the guidelines on the method of setting fines

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Arkema SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.