do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 994/2011 of 6 October 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, fruit, import (EU), import price, vegetable








L_2011263EN.01000501.xml










7.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 263/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 994/2011
of 6 October 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 7 October 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 October 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 


MK 


54,8 




ZZ 


54,8 




0707 00 05 


EG 


98,1 




MK 


44,0 




TR 


126,8 




ZZ 


89,6 




0709 90 70 


TR 


118,8 




ZZ 


118,8 




0805 50 10 


AR 


71,7 




BR 


41,3 




CL 


60,5 




TR 


72,6 




UY 


68,8 




ZA 


74,3 




ZZ 


64,9 




0806 10 10 


BR 


248,7 




CL 


79,6 




EG 


65,0 




TR 


112,5 




US 


275,5 




ZA 


65,0 




ZZ 


141,1 




0808 10 80 


CL 


69,1 




CN 


86,4 




NZ 


117,2 




US 


114,5 




ZA 


89,8 




ZZ 


95,4 




0808 20 50 


CN 


56,3 




TR 


107,9 




ZA 


60,3 




ZZ 


74,8 






(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 T-235/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Codess Sociale and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, cooperative, social-security contribution








C_2011347EN.01004402.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/44





Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Codess Sociale and Others v Commission
(Case T-235/00) (1)

2011/C 347/78
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 4, 6.1.2001.
Case T-266/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Confartigianato Venezia and Others v Commission
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, social-security contribution, type of business








C_2011347EN.01004404.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/44





Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Confartigianato Venezia and Others v Commission
(Case T-266/00) (1)

2011/C 347/80
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
Case T-425/09: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BLAST — Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011340EN.01001702.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/17





Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)
(Case T-425/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BLAST - Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)
2011/C 340/33
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Honda Motor Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hendrik Blok (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1097/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Hendrik Blok and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Honda Motor Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
Case T-277/07: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investrónica (SECUREOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, action for annulment (EU), information technology industry, trade-mark law








C_2011347EN.01003101.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/31





Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investrónica (SECUREOS)
(Case T-277/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 347/50
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Secure Computing Corp. (Roseville, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially E. López Leiva, subsequently J.L. Zurdo Rivas, subsequently J.L. Zurdo Rivas and E. López Camba, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 (Case R 1063/2006-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Secure Computing Corp.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.
Case C-421/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab (VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 21(1)(b) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country — Concept of ‘taxable person established abroad’ )
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, head office, residence, taxpayer








C_2011347EN.01000502.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab
(Case C-421/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 21(1)(b) - Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes - Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country - Concept of ‘taxable person established abroad’)
2011/C 347/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Finanzamt Deggendorf

Respondent: Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same Member State as the recipients of those services but having established the seat of his economic activity in another Member State — Concept of a ‘taxable person established abroad’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for him to be considered a ‘taxable person who is not established within the territory of the country’, it is sufficient that the taxable person should have established the seat of his economic activity outside that country.


(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011294EN.01000601.xml










6.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 October 2011
2011/C 294/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3337




JPY


Japanese yen


102,25




DKK


Danish krone


7,4434




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86300




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1190




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2265




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8105




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,811




HUF


Hungarian forint


298,84




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7087




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3953




RON


Romanian leu


4,3145




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4980




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3913




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4025




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3797




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7536




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7389




KRW


South Korean won


1 585,87




ZAR


South African rand


10,8014




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5037




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5110




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 883,71




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2492




PHP


Philippine peso


58,499




RUB


Russian rouble


43,5025




THB


Thai baht


41,585




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4769




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3168




INR


Indian rupee


65,8180






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-488/08: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS — Earlier Community word marks GALILEO — Earlier Community figurative mark powered by Galileo — Earlier Community figurative marks GALILEO INTERNATIONAL — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, satellite navigation, trade-mark law








C_2011340EN.01001601.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/16





Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)
(Case T-488/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’ - Earlier Community word marks ‘GALILEO’ - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘powered by Galileo’ - Earlier Community figurative marks ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2011/C 340/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño and P. Bullock, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 403/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Galileo International Technology, LLC and Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Galileo International Technology, LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.
Reserve lists — Open competitions — EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9) and EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12) — Heads of unit with Romanian citizenship (RO)
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrative procedure, competition (EU), economy, legal science








CA2011294EN.01000101.xml










6.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 294/1





RESERVE LISTS (1)

OPEN COMPETITIONS
EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)
and
EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)
HEADS OF UNIT WITH ROMANIAN CITIZENSHIP (RO)
(2011/C 294 A/01)
1.   Law
EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)






BACHMANN


Dana Carmen




MERCORE


Elena-Gabriela




EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)
No successful candidate
2.   Economics
EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)






BOICIUC


Alina




GURZUN


Maria Magdalena




HRISCU


Oana Geanina




JAKAB


Istvan




LABUNET


Mihai




MOLDOVAN


Adrian Eugen




RANTA


Sergiu Cristian




STRACHINESCU OLTEANU


Magdalena Andreea




EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)






CONSTANTINESCU


Mircea Cristian




CRISTEA


Claudiu Ciprian




DUMITRESCU


Vasile




PURCAREA


Adrian




ULCELUSE


Anisoara




3.   European public administration
EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)
Merit group 1






BUGEAC


Alin-Gabriel




PURCAREA


Octave




TODORAN


Horea Silviu




Merit group 2






BAKKER


Elvira Cezara




LEONTE


Gabriel Octavian




PASECINIC


Liliana




PECA


Viorel Daniel




SURDEANU


Radu




EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)






COPIL-BRINDA


Viorel




DIMA


Alexandru




DIONISIE


Valeriu Dan




NECSA


Daniel




PASCA PALMER


Cristiana




The reserve lists will be valid until 2 July 2012.


(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.
Joined Cases C-448/10 P to C-450/10 P: Order of the Court of 6 October 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) v European Commission (Appeal — Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest — Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of advantage — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Interpretation of national law — Distortion — Concept — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, energy industry, preferential price








C_2012032EN.01001202.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/12





Order of the Court of 6 October 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-448/10 P to C-450/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of advantage - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Interpretation of national law - Distortion - Concept - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
2012/C 32/21
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) (represented by: T. Salonico. G. Barone and A. Marega, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and G. Conte, acting as Agents.)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08 ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeals are dismissed.










2.


ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, Cementir Italia Srl and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6384 — Zurich/Santander/ZS Insurance) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, insurance company, merger control








C_2011294EN.01000102.xml










6.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6384 — Zurich/Santander/ZS Insurance)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 294/02
On 29 September 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 32011M6384. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-528/11: Action brought on 6 October 2011 — Aloe Vera of America v OHIM — Diviril (FOREVER)
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, distributor, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011362EN.01001802.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/18





Action brought on 6 October 2011 — Aloe Vera of America v OHIM — Diviril (FOREVER)
(Case T-528/11)
2011/C 362/27
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Aloe Vera of America, Inc. (Dallas, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diviril-Distribuidora de Viveres do Ribatejo, Lda (Alenquer, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 August 2011 in case R 742/2010-4; and










—


Order the defendant and, as appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘FOREVER’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 30, 31 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 5617089

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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 297697 of the figurative mark ‘4 EVER’, for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: 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 failed: (i) to correctly assess the proof of use provided by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; (ii) to correctly identify the aural differences between the opposed trade marks; (iii) to correctly identify the conceptual differences between the trade marks in conflict; and (iv) to correctly identify the visual differences between the opposed trade marks.