do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Athens Convention on carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea – excluding Articles 10 and 11 *** European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 November 2011 on the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof (08663/2011 – C7-0142/2011 – 2003/0132A(NLE))
Date: 2011-11-15
Institutions: Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, accession to an agreement, carriage of passengers, carrier, international convention, liability, maritime transport, protocol to an agreement, transport accident








CE2013153EN.01016702.xml










31.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 153/167





Tuesday 15 November 2011Athens Convention on carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea – excluding Articles 10 and 11 ***
P7_TA(2011)0478
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 November 2011 on the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof (08663/2011 – C7-0142/2011 – 2003/0132A(NLE))
2013/C 153 E/25
(Consent)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (08663/2011),










—


having regard to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (08663/2011),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(6) second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 218(8) first subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0142/2011),










—


having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0356/2011),










1.


Consents to accession to the Protocol;










2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the International Maritime Organization.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1188/2011 of 15 November 2011 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in IV; EU waters of IIa; that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and Kattegat by vessels flying the flag of Sweden
Date: 2011-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Denmark, EU waters, North Sea, Norway, Norwegian Sea, Sweden, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2011302EN.01001401.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 302/14








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1188/2011
of 15 November 2011
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in IV; EU waters of IIa; that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and Kattegat by vessels flying the flag of Sweden


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 that of 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, 15 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, 27.01.2011, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


74/T&Q




Member State


Sweden




Stock


COD/2A3AX4




Species


Cod (Gadus morhua)




Zone


IV; EU waters of IIa; that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and Kattegat




Date


31.10.2011
Case T-591/11: Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)
Date: 2011-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adhesive, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002901.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/29





Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)
(Case T-591/11)
2012/C 32/59
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. (Jaworzno, Republic of Poland) (represented by: M. Konieczyński, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel Corp. (Gulph Mills, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2011 in Case R 1147/2010-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of representation in the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark depicting a tube in the colours white, black, grey and yellow and containing the word element ‘SUPER GLUE’, for goods in Classes 1 and 16 — Community trade mark application No 7 262 405

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Henkel Corp.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark No 377 517‘SUPERGLUE’ registered in Benelux, for goods in Classes 1 and 16

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-584/11: Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)
Date: 2011-11-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002702.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/27





Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)
(Case T-584/11)
2012/C 32/57
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Hartmann (Leer, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 2262/2010-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: word mark ‘ATLAS TRANSPORT’ for goods in Class 39.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Alfred Hartmann.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: rejection of the application for revocation.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld.

Pleas in law: infringement of Rule 40(5), in conjunction with Rule 22, of Implementing Regulation No 2868/95 due to an erroneous assessment of the evidence; infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009, since, in its literal interpretation, the defendant addressed the issue alone as to whether there had been a legitimate use of the mark for the corresponding services; infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, since, in determining the meaning of the term ‘transport’, the defendant referred merely to one source and thus evaluated that term without due care and insufficiently; infringement of Article 75, sentence 1, of Regulation No 207/2009, since the defendant failed to clearly reason its legal opinion; infringement of Article 75, sentence 2, and Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as a result of a breach of the right to be heard.