do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
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.01001201.xml










29.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 285/12





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 285/08






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 F-93/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Parliament (Civil service — Appointment — Recruitment and simultaneous transfer to another institution — Grading under new, less favourable rules — Admissibility of the action — Interest in bringing an action — Action out of time)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, appointment of staff, indemnification, infringement of EU law, occupational status, staff assessment








C_2012138EN.01002201.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/22






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Parliament
(Case F-93/05) (1)

(Civil service - Appointment - Recruitment and simultaneous transfer to another institution - Grading under new, less favourable rules - Admissibility of the action - Interest in bringing an action - Action out of time)
(2012/C 138/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Holland, B. Maluch and J. Mische, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and L.G. Knudsen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 following a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials) and an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005, p. 15 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-365/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).
Case F-56/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Strobl v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Grading under the new, less favourable rules — Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of equality — Age discrimination)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: equal treatment, professional experience, working conditions








C_2012138EN.01002101.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/21






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Strobl v Commission
(Case F-56/05) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Grading under the new, less favourable rules - Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equality - Age discrimination)
(2012/C 138/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peter Strobl (Greifenberg-Beuern, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall, Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm et I. Šulce, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 28 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-260/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).
Case T-479/08: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — adidas v OHIM — Patrick Holding (Representation of a shoe with two stripes) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a shoe with two stripes on the side — Earlier national trade mark representing a shoe with three stripes on the side — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to substantiate the earlier right — Failure to translate elements essential to substantiating the registration of the earlier trade mark — Rule 16(3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leather industry, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2011331EN.01001701.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/17





Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — adidas v OHIM — Patrick Holding (Representation of a shoe with two stripes)
(Case T-479/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a shoe with two stripes on the side - Earlier national trade mark representing a shoe with three stripes on the side - Relative ground for refusal - Failure to substantiate the earlier right - Failure to translate elements essential to substantiating the registration of the earlier trade mark - Rule 16(3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
2011/C 331/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, and I. Fowler, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Patrick Holding ApS (Fredensborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Løge and T. Meedom, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 August 2008 (Case R 849/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Patrick Holding ApS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders adidas AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.
Case T-519/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Sandro Gozi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, criminal procedure, redemption








C_2011347EN.01004101.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/41





Appeal brought on 29 September 2011 by Sandro Gozi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission
(Case T-519/11 P)
2011/C 347/73
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Sandro Gozi (Rome, Italy) (represented by G. Passalacqua and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Annul the measure taken by the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security — HR.D.2/MB/db Ares (2010) — Y96 985 of 6 August 2010.










—


Recognise and declare the right of Mr Gozi to reimbursement of legal costs and, consequently, order the payment of the sum of EUR 24 480 plus costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the decision by which the defendant refused reimbursement of the sum of EUR 24 480 for the legal costs incurred by the appellant in legal proceedings in Italy.
In support of his appeal, Mr Gozi relies on a sole ground of appeal alleging that the judgment under appeal in the present case seems to be wrong in law and marred in several places by reasoning which is clearly contradictory, since that judgment disregards the rationale and wording of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Union, thereby running counter to the case-law referred to in the judgment itself and to the findings of fact in the proceedings before the Commission.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 970/2011 of 29 September 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, fruit, import (EU), import price, vegetable








L_2011254EN.01001001.xml










30.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 254/10








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 970/2011
of 29 September 2011
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 September 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


AR 


25,3 




BR 


31,9 




MK 


26,7 




ZZ 


28,0 




0707 00 05 


MK 


44,0 




TR 


111,6 




ZZ 


77,8 




0709 90 70 


TR 


107,9 




ZZ 


107,9 




0805 50 10 


AR 


65,8 




BR 


41,3 




CL 


65,2 




TR 


71,3 




UY 


61,2 




ZA 


72,4 




ZZ 


62,9 




0806 10 10 


CL 


71,0 




MK 


82,2 




TR 


106,4 




ZA 


58,9 




ZZ 


79,6 




0808 10 80 


CL 


73,3 




CN 


82,6 




NZ 


98,4 




US 


83,3 




ZA 


92,6 




ZZ 


86,0 




0808 20 50 


CN 


88,7 




TR 


120,5 




ZZ 


104,6 




0809 30 


TR 


167,9 




ZZ 


167,9 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case F-74/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Kimman v Commission (Staff cases — Civil servants — Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2009 appraisal — Classification in a level of performance — Decision awarding promotion points — Appraisal report — Opinion of the ad hoc group — Infringement of the duty to give reasons — Plea raised of its own motion — Burden of proof)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: infringement of EU law, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment








C_2012138EN.01002402.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/24






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Kimman v Commission
(Case F-74/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Civil servants - Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2009 appraisal - Classification in a level of performance - Decision awarding promotion points - Appraisal report - Opinion of the ad hoc group - Infringement of the duty to give reasons - Plea raised of its own motion - Burden of proof)
(2012/C 138/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Eugène Émile Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and P. Pecho, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s staff report for 2008

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear a quarter of the applicant’s costs, in addition to its own costs;










3.


Orders the applicant to pay three quarters of his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 63.
Case C-387/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds — Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed — Evidence provided by way of a tax representative — National financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, credit institution, distribution of income, freedom to provide services, investment company, trust company








C_2011340EN.01000401.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/4





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-387/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds - Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed - Evidence provided by way of a tax representative - ‘National’ financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives)
2011/C 340/06
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent.)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 49 EC and of Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — Legislation of a Member State restricting tax representation in respect of investment funds and real property investment funds to business trustees and financial institutions established in that State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only national financial institutions and national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment funds or real property investment funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;










2.


Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
Case F-72/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Article 29(1)(a) and (b) of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Statement of reasons)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: appointment of members, area of freedom, security and justice, equal treatment, public contract, rights of the defence








C_2012138EN.01002401.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/24






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
(Case F-72/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 29(1)(a) and (b) of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Statement of reasons)
(2012/C 138/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: da Silva Tenreiro (Kraiinem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and P. Pecho, Agents)

Re:

(1) Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ of the DG ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ and the decision appointing the new Director; (2) Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the procedure for filling the post of Director of DG JLS.F ‘Security’ and the decision to appoint the new Director.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders the applicant to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010, p. 49.
Case T-4/06: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Poland v Commission (Agriculture — Act of Accession 2003 — Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 — 2004/2005 marketing year — Additional levy — Setting of two coefficients — Competence — Legal basis — Empowering measure — Obligation to give reasons — Compliance with essential procedural requirements)
Date: 2011-09-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: accession to the European Union, agricultural situation, competition, marketing, sugar levy








C_2011331EN.01001602.xml










12.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/16





Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-4/06) (1)

(Agriculture - Act of Accession 2003 - Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 - 2004/2005 marketing year - Additional levy - Setting of two coefficients - Competence - Legal basis - Empowering measure - Obligation to give reasons - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)
2011/C 331/28
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by J. Pietras, later by E. Osśiecka-Tamecka, later by: T. Nowakowski, later by M. Dowgielewicz, B. Majczyna and P. Rosniak and finally, by: B. Majczyna, M. Szpunnar and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Szmytkowska, C. Cattabriga and F. Erlbacher, later, by: A. Szmytkowska and P. Rossi, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12), as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12), as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1);










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.