do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1157/2011 of 10 November 2011 establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN by vessels flying the flag of France
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Faroes, France, United Kingdom, catch quota, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2011296EN.01002001.xml










15.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 296/20








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1157/2011
of 10 November 2011
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in EU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN by vessels flying the flag of France


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to 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), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011 fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters (2), lays down quotas for 2011.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2011.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2011 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

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, 10 November 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 24, 27.1.2011, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


66/T&Q




Member State


France




Stock


HER/5B6ANB




Species


Herring (Clupea harengus)




Zone


EU and international waters of Vb, VIb and VIaN




Date


12.10.2011
Case C-88/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — LG Electronics, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word sign ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ — Refusal to register — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Descriptive character — Consideration of new evidence by the General Court — Distortion of the facts and evidence)
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, trade-mark law








C_2012025EN.01001902.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/19






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — LG Electronics, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-88/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word sign ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ - Refusal to register - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Consideration of new evidence by the General Court - Distortion of the facts and evidence)
(2012/C 25/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: J. Blanchard, avocat)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM dismissing the appellant’s action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 397/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign KOMPRESSOR PLUS as a Community trade mark — Descriptive nature of the mark — Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Consideration of new facts by the General Court — Distortion of the evidence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders LG Electronics Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2011 of 10 November 2011 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Zgornjesavinjski želodec (PGI))
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, designation of origin, meat product, pigmeat, product designation








L_2011296EN.01001401.xml










15.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 296/14








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1154/2011
of 10 November 2011
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Zgornjesavinjski želodec (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Slovenia’s application to register the name ‘Zgornjesavinjski želodec’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th 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, 10 November 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 45, 12.2.2011, p. 28.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

SLOVENIA
Zgornjesavinjski želodec (PGI)
Case F-18/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Mohamed Merhzaoui v Council of the European Union (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Classification in grade — Local staff appointed as officials — Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 3 of the annex to the CEOS — Promotion exercise for 2008 — Consideration of comparative merits of officials attached to the career stream AST — Procedure based on staff reports 2005/2006 — Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: occupational status, promotion








C_2012138EN.01002202.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/22






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Mohamed Merhzaoui v Council of the European Union
(Case F-18/09) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Classification in grade - Local staff appointed as officials - Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 3 of the annex to the CEOS - Promotion exercise for 2008 - Consideration of comparative merits of officials attached to the career stream AST - Procedure based on staff reports 2005/2006 - Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)
(2012/C 138/41)
Language of the case:French

Parties


Applicant: Mohamed Merhzaoui (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and G. Kimberley, agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the decision to assign the applicant to the career stream AST 1-7. Secondly, annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Mohamed Merhzaoui to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 46.
Case C-565/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 November 2011 — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, infringement of EU law, maximum price








C_2012025EN.01003403.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/34






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 November 2011 — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-565/11)
(2012/C 25/66)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mariana Irimie

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Can the principle of the effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality of remedies in relation to infringements of Community law to which individuals are subjected as the result of the application of legislation which does not conform to Community law arising from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the right to property laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be regarded as precluding provisions of national law which limit the amount of damage which could be recovered by an individual who has suffered an infringement of his rights?
Case T-22/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of a letter on a pocket) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark consisting of the representation of a letter on a pocket — Earlier national figurative mark representing a letter — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, brand name, clothing industry, trade-mark law








C_2011370EN.01002302.xml










17.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/23





Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of a letter on a pocket)
(Case T-22/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark consisting of the representation of a letter on a pocket - Earlier national figurative mark representing a letter - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 370/38
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Esprit International LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Treis and E.-M. Strobel, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, S. Schäffner, and subsequently, G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Marc O’Polo International GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Gaul, V. Spitz, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 1666/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Marc O’Polo International GmbH and Esprit International LP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Esprit International LP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
Case C-444/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Lüdenscheid v Christel Schriever (VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 5(8) — Concept of a ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ — Transfer of the stock and fittings concomitant with the conclusion of a contract of lease of the business premises)
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business lease, economic activity, transfer of property








C_2012025EN.01001702.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/17






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Lüdenscheid v Christel Schriever
(Case C-444/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 5(8) - Concept of a ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ - Transfer of the stock and fittings concomitant with the conclusion of a contract of lease of the business premises)
(2012/C 25/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

Defendant: Christel Schriever

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 5(8) 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) — Possibility for the Member States to exempt from VAT the transfer of a totality of assets — Lease for an indefinite period of the shop premises of a retail outlet together with the transfer to the lessee of ownership of the stock and shop fittings of the retail outlet — Possibility of categorising such a transaction as a ‘transfer of a totality of assets’ for the purposes of Article 5(8) of Directive 77/388/EEC.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(8) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a transfer of a totality of assets, or a part thereof, for the purposes of that provision, where the stock and fittings of a retail outlet are transferred concomitantly with the conclusion of a contract of lease, to the transferee, of the premises of that outlet for an indefinite period but terminable at short notice by either party, provided that the assets transferred are sufficient for the transferee to be able to carry on an independent economic activity on a lasting basis.


(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Case T-585/11: Action brought on 10 November 2011 — Cheverny Investments v Commission
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, financial solvency, tax relief








C_2012025EN.01006001.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/60






Action brought on 10 November 2011 — Cheverny Investments v Commission
(Case T-585/11)
(2012/C 25/115)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Cheverny Investments (St Julians, Republic of Malta) (represented by: H. Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision K(2011)275 of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 relating to the fiscal carry-forward of losses (‘Sanierungsklausel’), addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany;










—


alternatively, annul Commission Decision K(2011)275 of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany inasmuch as on interpretation of national law the carry-forward of losses under Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Law on corporation tax (Körperschaftssteuergesetz, ‘KStG’) does not apply only to companies which are over-indebted or insolvent or are likely to become insolvent, but a carry-forward of losses within the meaning of Paragraph 8c(1a) leads, in so far as the further conditions are met, to a retention of the carry-forward of losses in the event of a change of share owner also for companies whose insolvency or over-indebtedness is avoidable, thus merely imminent;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s necessary costs under Article 87(2)(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the Commission made an error of assessment by incorrectly finding in its analysis of Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG that the carry-forward of losses constituted State aid, in that it






—


assumed that the provision which it objected to concerns only companies which are insolvent or likely to become insolvent, but not also those for which insolvency or over-indebtedness are merely imminent;










—


assumed selectivity on the basis that the reference system used is Paragraph 8c of the KStG and not the Law on corporation tax.




In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission made errors of assessment in the contested decision, in that






—


the Commission did not determine the reference system in the light of the KStG and taking account of its own Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (OJ 1998 L 384, p.3) and its proposal for a Council Directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB);










—


did not find that the carry-forward of losses was justified by the disruption to the general economic equilibrium of 2009.




In the applicant’s opinion, in the light of the foregoing, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU.
Case C-505/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret, Denmark) — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet (Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Exemption — Concept of ‘navigation’ — Fuel used for an excavator affixed to a vessel and operating independently of the vessel’s engine)
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, excise duty, hydrocarbon, tax exemption








C_2012025EN.01001901.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/19






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret, Denmark) — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-505/10) (1)

(Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Exemption - Concept of ‘navigation’ - Fuel used for an excavator affixed to a vessel and operating independently of the vessel’s engine)
(2012/C 25/31)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Partrederiet Sea Fighter

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Art. 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Exemption for mineral oils used as fuel for the purposes of navigation — Concept of ‘for the purposes of navigation’ — Mineral oils used as fuel for an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but having its own separate motor and fuel tank and thus operating independently of the vessel’s propulsion motor.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but which, because it has its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion engine, are not exempt from excise duties.


(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Case C-405/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against QB (*) (Protection of the environment — Regulations (EC) Nos 1013/2006 and 1418/2007 — Control of shipments of waste — Prohibition on the shipment of spent catalysts to Lebanon)
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Lebanon, export of waste




C_2012025EN.01001402.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/14






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against  QB (*1)

(Case C-405/10) (1)

(Protection of the environment - Regulations (EC) Nos 1013/2006 and 1418/2007 - Control of shipments of waste - Prohibition on the shipment of spent catalysts to Lebanon)
(2012/C 25/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bruchsal

Party in the main proceedings

 QB (*1)


Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Interpretation of Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1), read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply (OJ 2007 L 316, p. 6) — Prohibition on the shipment of waste which falls within waste category B 1120 (catalysts) to Lebanon

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 36(1)(f) and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006 to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008 of 29 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the export from the European Union to Lebanon of waste, intended for recovery, which falls within category B1120 in List B in Part 1 of Annex V to Regulation No 1013/2006 is prohibited.


(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.