do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-549/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted to fish farmers and fishermen — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market — Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible and to inform the Commission — Non-compliance — Absolute impossibility of compliance)
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aquaculture, control of State aid, fishing industry








C_2011362EN.01000501.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/5





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-549/09) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted to fish farmers and fishermen - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market - Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible and to inform the Commission - Non-compliance - Absolute impossibility of compliance)
2011/C 362/06
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and K. Walkerová, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (OJ 2005, L 74, p. 49) — Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible and to inform the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to comply, within the prescribed time-limits, with Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen, by recovering from the recipients of the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 4 of that decision.










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs






(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6255 — Terex/Demag Cranes) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hoisting equipment, machine-tool industry, merger control








C_2011308EN.01000401.xml










20.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 308/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6255 — Terex/Demag Cranes)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 308/04
On 5 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 32011M6255. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-536/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG and Others
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, cartel, judicial proceedings, national law








C_2012013EN.01000503.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG and Others
(Case C-536/11)
2012/C 13/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde

Defendants: Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH.

Other parties to the proceedings: Bundeskartellanwalt, Verband Druck & Medientechnik

Questions referred







1.


Does European Union law, in particular in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 June 2011 in Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer, preclude a provision of national antitrust law which, (inter alia) in proceedings involving the application of Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU in conjunction with Regulation 1/2003/EC, (1) makes the grant of access to documents before the cartel court to third persons who are not parties to the proceedings, so as to enable them to prepare actions for damages against cartel participants, subject, without exception, to the condition that all the parties to the proceedings must give their consent, and which does not allow the court to weigh on a case-by-case basis the interests protected by European Union law with a view to determining the conditions under which access to the file is to be permitted or refused?




If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:






2.


Does European Union law preclude such a national provision where, although the latter applies in the same way to purely national antitrust proceedings and, moreover, does not contain any special rules in respect of documents made available by applicants for leniency, comparable national provisions applicable to other types of proceedings, in particular contentious and non-contentious civil and criminal proceedings, allow access to documents before the court even without the consent of the parties, provided that the third person who is not party to the proceedings adduces prima facie evidence to show that he has a legal interest in obtaining access to the file and that such access is not precluded in the case in question by the overriding interests of another person or overriding public interests?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6320 — GKN/Getrag Corporation/Getrag All Wheel Drive) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2011308EN.01000101.xml










20.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 308/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6320 — GKN/Getrag Corporation/Getrag All Wheel Drive)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 308/01
On 28 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 32011M6320. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
2011/697/CFSP: Council Decision 2011/697/CFSP of 20 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/621/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative to the African Union
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: African Union, appointment of members, diplomatic representation




L_2011276EN.01004601.xml










21.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 276/46








            COUNCIL DECISION 2011/697/CFSP
of 20 October 2011
         
amending Decision 2011/621/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative to the African Union


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 6 December 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/805/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Koen VERVAEKE as European Union Special Representative (EUSR) to the African Union (AU).












(2)


On 21 September 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/621/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2012.












(3)


A new EUSR to the AU should be appointed for the period from 1 November 2011 until 30 June 2012.












(4)


Decision 2011/621/CFSP should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 1 of Decision 2011/621/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘Article 1
European Union Special Representative

1.   The mandate of Mr Koen VERVAEKE as EUSR to the AU is hereby extended until 31 October 2011.


2.   Mr Gary QUINCE is hereby appointed as EUSR to the AU for the period from 1 November 2011 until 30 June 2012.


3.   The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).’.




Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.


For the Council


The President

M. SAWICKI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 323, 8.12.2007, p. 45.

(2)  
            OJ L 243, 21.9.2011, p. 19.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2011 of 20 October 2011 on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of October 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beef, import (EU), import licence, tariff quota








L_2011276EN.01002601.xml










21.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 276/26








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1054/2011
of 20 October 2011
         
on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of October 2011 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009


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 Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.












(2)


Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 October 2011 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Import licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 October 2011 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,446549 %.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 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 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

(3)  
            OJ L 182, 15.7.2009, p. 25.
Joined Cases C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — Freixenet SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Applications for registration of Community trade marks representing a frosted white bottle and a frosted black matt bottle — Refusal to register — Lack of distinctive character)
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, champagne, packaging product, rights of the defence, trade-mark law








C_2011362EN.01000902.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — Freixenet SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Joined Cases C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Applications for registration of Community trade marks representing a frosted white bottle and a frosted black matt bottle - Refusal to register - Lack of distinctive character)
2011/C 362/13
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Freixenet SA (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 in Case T-109/08 Freixenet v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2007 (Case R 97/2001-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted white matt bottle as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 38(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (now Articles 7(1)(b), 75 and 37(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)) — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing — Refusal to register a trade mark — Absence of distinctive character

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2010 in Case T-109/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted white bottle), and in Case T-110/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted black matt bottle);










2.


Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2007 (case R 97/2001-1) and of 20 November 2007 (Case R 104/2001-1);










3.


Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs both at first instance and in the appeals.






(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
Case C-535/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Apozyt GmbH
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, drug surveillance, generic drug, veterinary drug








C_2012013EN.01000502.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Apozyt GmbH
(Case C-535/11)
2012/C 13/10
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: Novartis Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Apozyt GmbH

Question referred

Does the term ‘developed’ in the introductory sentence of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (1) extend to processes in which portions only of a medicinal product which has been developed and produced on a ready-to-use basis in accordance with the above procedures are drawn off into another container, after being prescribed and ordered at the time concerned by a doctor, if as a result of the process the composition of the medicinal product is not modified, and therefore in particular to the production of pre-filled syringes which have been filled with a medicinal product which is authorised under the regulation?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1.
Case T-95/09: Order of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — United Phosphorus v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance napropamide — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Adoption of a subsequent directive — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: pharmaceutical product, plant health product, withdrawal from the market








C_2011362EN.01001702.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/17





Order of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — United Phosphorus v Commission
(Case T-95/09) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance napropamide - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Adoption of a subsequent directive - No need to adjudicate)
2011/C 362/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Phosphorus Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and N.B. Rasmussen, and subsequently by L. Parpala, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
Council Regulation (EU) No 1071/2011 of 20 October 2011 repealing Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 on the implementation of Article 43 of the 1979 Act of Accession, concerning the system of trade applicable to the goods covered by Regulations (EEC) No 3033/80 and (EEC) No 3035/80
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: agricultural product, export (EU), monetary compensatory amount, third country, trading operation




L_2011284EN.01000101.xml










31.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 284/1








            COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1071/2011
of 20 October 2011
         
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 on the implementation of Article 43 of the 1979 Act of Accession, concerning the system of trade applicable to the goods covered by Regulations (EEC) No 3033/80 and (EEC) No 3035/80


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the 1979 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 43 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


Improving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the better law-making strategy that Union institutions are implementing. In that context it is appropriate to remove from active legislation those acts which no longer have real effect.












(2)


Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 (1) provided for transitional measures for trade of non-Annex I goods between the EC and Greece between 1 November 1981 and 31 July 1982. While Greece is a full Member now, that Regulation has become obsolete, and should consequently be withdrawn from the active Union acquis.












(3)


For reasons of legal certainty and clarity, Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 should be repealed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

1.   Regulation (EEC) No 3448/80 is repealed.


2.   The repeal of the Regulation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to:






(a)


the maintenance in force of Union acts adopted on the basis of the Regulation referred to in paragraph 1; and










(b)


the continuing validity of amendments made by the Regulation referred to in paragraph 1 to other acts of Union law that are not repealed by this Regulation.







Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 20 October 2011.


For the Council


The President

M. SAWICKI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 359, 31.12.1980, p. 18.
Case T-57/09: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Alfastar Benelux v Council (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council — Rejection of a tender — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)
Date: 2011-10-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, computer equipment, maintenance, services contract, tendering








C_2011355EN.01001601.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/16





Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Alfastar Benelux v Council
(Case T-57/09) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council - Rejection of a tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)
2011/C 355/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alfastar Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta, M. Vitsentzatos and M. Robert, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the Council’s decision of 1 December 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the Alfastar-Siemens consortium, composed of Alfastar Benelux SA and Siemens IT Solutions and Services SA, in response to Call for Tenders UCA/218/07 for the provision of technical maintenance — help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2008/S 91-122796) and to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Council’s decision of 1 December 2008 to reject the tender submitted by the consortium composed of Alfastar Benelux SA and Siemens IT Solutions and Services SA, in response to Call for Tenders UCA/218/07 for the provision of technical maintenance — help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer;










2.


Dismisses the claim for damages;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.