do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Calls for proposals under the 2012 work programme People of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, co-financing, research and development, scientific profession








C_2011307EN.01000801.xml










19.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 307/8





Calls for proposals under the 2012 work programme ‘People’ of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities
2011/C 307/07
Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals under the 2012 work programme ‘People’ of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).
Proposals are invited for the following calls. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the relevant European Commission website.

‘People’ specific programme:







Call title


Call identifier




Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes


FP7-PEOPLE-2012-COFUND




Industry-academia partnerships and pathways


FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IAPP




These calls for proposals relate to the 2012 work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2011) 5033 of 19 July 2011.
Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programmes, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals are available through the relevant European Commission website.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011307EN.01000201.xml










19.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 307/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 October 2011
2011/C 307/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3676




JPY


Japanese yen


104,97




DKK


Danish krone


7,4456




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87020




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1589




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2348




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7605




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,925




HUF


Hungarian forint


298,40




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7057




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3684




RON


Romanian leu


4,3525




TRY


Turkish lira


2,5568




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3489




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4018




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6373




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7360




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7423




KRW


South Korean won


1 567,60




ZAR


South African rand


11,0432




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,7262




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4715




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 061,31




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2854




PHP


Philippine peso


59,256




RUB


Russian rouble


42,8780




THB


Thai baht


42,095




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4332




MXN


Mexican peso


18,5187




INR


Indian rupee


67,5500






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-548/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY)
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insurance company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012006EN.01001801.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/18





Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY)
(Case T-548/11)
2012/C 6/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;










—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 114/2011-4; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international trade mark registration No W 983683 of the figurative mark ‘real,- QUALITY’, in red, blue and beige, for services in class 36

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 249791 of the word mark ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; Portuguese trade mark registration No 249793 of the word mark ‘REAL SEGUROS’, for services in class 36; Portuguese figurative mark registration No 254390 comprising the word element ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; various unregistered rights claimed to be protected in all Member States or in Portugal

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

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 wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed marks.
Case T-549/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO)
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insurance company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012006EN.01001901.xml










7.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/19





Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO)
(Case T-549/11)
2012/C 6/35
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;










—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 115/2011-4; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international trade mark registration No W 983684 of the figurative mark ‘real,- BIO’, in green, white and brown, for services in class 36

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 249791 of the word mark ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; Portuguese trade mark registration No 249793 of the word mark ‘REAL SEGUROS’, for services in class 36; Portuguese figurative mark registration No 254390 comprising the word element ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; various unregistered rights claimed to be protected in all Member States or in Portugal

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 wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed marks.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, France, Portugal, Spain, catch of fish, common fisheries policy, fishing rights, sea fish








C_2011307EN.01000501.xml










19.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 307/5





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2011/C 307/04
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


13.8.2011




Duration


13.8.2011-31.12.2011




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


SRX/89-C.




Species


Skates and rays (Rajidae)




Zone


EU waters of VIII and IX




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


870462




Web link to the decision of the Member State:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm


(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-139/06: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Periodic penalty payment — Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures — Request for payment — Competence of the Commission — Jurisdiction of the General Court)
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, infringement of EU law, periodic penalty payment








C_2011347EN.01002701.xml










26.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/27





Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission
(Case T-139/06) (1)

(Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures - Request for payment - Competence of the Commission - Jurisdiction of the General Court)
2011/C 347/39
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and S. Gasri and subsequently, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, K. Banks and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, T. Harris and C. Murrell, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 659 Final of 1 March 2006 seeking payment of the periodic penalty payments due pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
Action brought on 19 October 2011 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-14/11)
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: access to information, dominant position, international transport, market supervision, postal service, provision of documents








C_2011374EN.01001601.xml










22.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/16





Action brought on 19 October 2011 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-14/11)
2011/C 374/11
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 October 2011 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
The applicants request the EFTA Court to:






1.


Annul the contested decision in so far as it denies access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak).










2.


Order the defendant and any interveners to bear the costs.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS are part of DB Schenker, an international freight forwarding and logistic group, owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB (collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’).










—


On 14 July 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted a decision in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak), finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the Norwegian business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in 2000-2006. The applicants are pursuing a damages claim against Norway Post for losses caused by the infringement. On 3 August 2010, the applicants submitted a request for access to documents under the Rules of Access to Documents (RAD) established by a Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 27 June 2008.










—


By a letter dated 16 August 2011, the EFTA Surveillance Authority refused the applicants’ request for access to documents collected during an inspection at the premises of Norway Post between 21 and 24 June 2004. The applicants seek to challenge that refusal under Article 36 SCA.




The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated DB Schenker’s right of access to documents pursuant to Article 2(1) RAD:






—


by wrongfully applying the exception in Article 4(1)(b) RAD concerning privacy and personal integrity,










—


by wrongfully applying the exceptions in Article 4(2) RAD concerning commercial interests, inspections and investigations and overriding public interest in disclosure, and










—


infringed the right in Article 4(6) RAD to partial access to documents.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6406 — Colisée Laffitte/CDC/Ensemble immobilier Paris) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2011307EN.01001001.xml










19.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 307/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6406 — Colisée Laffitte/CDC/Ensemble immobilier Paris)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 307/09






1.


On 11 October 2011, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). This notification concerns the change from sole control by Colisée Laffitte (France) to joint control under Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation by Colisée Laffitte and Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC, France) of a building complex located in Paris (9th arrondissement).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Colisée Laffitte, a subsidiary of the Axa Group, is a real estate investment company,










—


CDC is a French public body that carries out missions of general interest on the one hand and activities open to competition on the other,










—


The building complex consists of buildings for office use located in Paris (9th arrondissement).














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.6406 — Colisée Laffitte/CDC/Ensemble immobilier Paris, 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 C-533/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, decontamination, enforcement of ruling, periodic penalty payment, water treatment








C_2012025EN.01002901.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/29






Action brought on 19 October 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-533/11)
(2012/C 25/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since it has failed to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 July 2004 in Case C-27/03;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay to the Commission the proposed penalty payment of EUR 55 836 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-27/03, from delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date on which the judgment in Case C-27/03 has been complied with;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay to the Commission the daily lump sum of EUR 6 204, from 8 July 2004, the date on which the judgment in Case C-27/03 was delivered, until delivery of the judgment in the present case or until the date on which the judgment in Case C-27/03 has been complied with, if earlier;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission submits that, in the case of the Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels-Capital) agglomeration and six agglomerations with a with a p.e. (population equivalent) of more than 10 000 in the Walloon Region, the collecting systems for urban waste water still fail to comply with the requirements of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. (1)

In addition, in the case of the Bruxelles-Capitale agglomeration, one agglomeration of more than 10 000 p.e. in the Flemish Region and 19 agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. in the Walloon Region, the systems for treating the urban waste water discharged into sensitive areas still fail to comply with the requirements laid down in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC.
The Commission thereby concludes that Belgium has not yet taken the measures necessary to comply fully with the judgment of the Court of 8 July 2004.


(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
Case C-532/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2011 — Susanne Leichenich v Ansbert Peffekoven, Ingo Horeis
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business lease, catering industry, harbour installation, pleasure craft








C_2012025EN.01002804.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/28






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2011 — Susanne Leichenich v Ansbert Peffekoven, Ingo Horeis
(Case C-532/11)
(2012/C 25/50)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Susanne Leichenich

Defendant: Ansbert Peffekoven, Ingo Horeis

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of the leasing or letting of immovable property covers the letting of a houseboat, including the mooring place and landing stage belonging to it, which is designed exclusively for stationary long-term use as a discotheque/restaurant establishment at a demarcated and identifiable mooring place on the water? Does the reply depend on the means whereby the houseboat is attached to the land or on the cost of removing the fastenings of the boat?










2.


If the answer to the first question in question 1 above is in the affirmative: Is Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘vehicles’ which, according to the judgment in Case C-428/02 Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn, includes boats, is not applicable to a leased houseboat which has no means of self-propulsion (engine) and which has been let for exclusive long-term use at the locality in question and not for the purpose of locomotion? Does the letting of the houseboat and the landing stage, including the areas of land and water on which they are situated, constitute a single tax-free service or is it necessary to differentiate for VAT purposes between the letting of the houseboat and that of the landing stage?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).