do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-356/10: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, award of contract, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2012049EN.01002102.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/21





Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-356/10) (1)

2012/C 49/36
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Case T-592/11: Action brought on 22 November 2011 — Anbouba v Council
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, damages, international sanctions, rights of the defence








C_2012025EN.01006201.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/62






Action brought on 22 November 2011 — Anbouba v Council
(Case T-592/11)
(2012/C 25/118)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin and J.-M. Salva, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Declare this application admissible in all its elements;










—


Declare it well founded in all its pleas in law;










—


Grant the joinder of the present application with the application in Case T-563/11;










—


State that the contested acts may be annulled in part since the part of the acts which is to be annulled can be separated from the act as a whole;










—


Accordingly






—


Annul in part Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011, and Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 by deleting the listing of Mr Issam Anbouba and references to him as supporting the current regime in Syria;










—


Failing that, annul Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;














—


Failing that, declare those decisions and the regulation inapplicable as regards Issam Anbouba and order the removal of his name and references from the list of persons who are the object of sanctions by the European Union;










—


Order the Council provisionally to pay one euro in damages as compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm suffered by reason of the designation of Mr Issam Anbouba as a supporter of the current regime in Syria;










—


Order the Council to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, audiovisual equipment, specification of tariff heading








C_2011341EN.01000101.xml










22.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/1





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
2011/C 341/01
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a), second indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are amended as follows:

Page 348

Between ‘8529 90 65 Electronic assemblies’ and ‘8531 Electric sound or visual signalling apparatus (for example, bells, sirens, indicator panels, burglar or fire alarms), other than those of heading 8512 or 8530’ the following text is inserted:

‘8529 90 92   For television cameras of subheadings 8525 80 11 and 8525 80 19 and apparatus of headings 8527 and 8528

This subheading includes so-called “LCD modules” consisting of a thin film transistor (TFT) liquid crystal layer sandwiched between two sheets or plates of glass or plastic, not combined with touch screen facilities, used in the manufacture of monitors and/or reception apparatus for television of heading 8528.
The modules are equipped with one or more printed or integrated circuits, with control electronics for pixel addressing only. They are not equipped with electronics (such as a video converter or a scaler) for video processing.
The modules can be equipped with a backlight unit and/or inverters.
This subheading does not include liquid crystal devices consisting of a liquid crystal layer sandwiched between two sheets or plates of glass or plastics, whether or not fitted with electrical connections (i.e. for the supply of power), presented in the piece or cut to special shapes (subheading 9013 80 20).’



(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6343 — Apax/Kinetic Concepts) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health care, investment company, merger control








C_2011341EN.01000202.xml










22.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6343 — Apax/Kinetic Concepts)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 341/03
On 7 November 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 32011M6343. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011341EN.01000401.xml










22.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 November 2011
2011/C 341/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3458




JPY


Japanese yen


103,44




DKK


Danish krone


7,4426




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86000




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1795




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2375




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8405




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,598




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,07




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7038




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4469




RON


Romanian leu


4,3628




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4812




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3614




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3937




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4824




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7945




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7526




KRW


South Korean won


1 539,58




ZAR


South African rand


11,1652




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5613




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4925




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 143,28




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2869




PHP


Philippine peso


58,407




RUB


Russian rouble


41,8596




THB


Thai baht


41,989




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4257




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7268




INR


Indian rupee


70,3920






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-275/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — mPAY24 v OHIM — Ultra (MPAY24) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MPAY24 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Correction of the decision by the Board of Appeal — Non-existent act — Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic money, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012013EN.01001302.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/13





Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — mPAY24 v OHIM — Ultra (MPAY24)
(Case T-275/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MPAY24 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Correction of the decision by the Board of Appeal - Non-existent act - Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
2012/C 13/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H.-G. Zeiner and S. Di Natale, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav and mPAY24 GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008-1);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
Case T-597/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, proof, psychological harassment, rights of the defence








C_2012039EN.01001503.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/15






Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission
(Case T-597/11 P)
(2012/C 39/32)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Christos Michails (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by C. Meidani, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:






—


hold the appeal to be admissible and well founded;










—


set aside the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission;










—


order payment to the applicant of damages for the non-material damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 30 000;










—


make an order as to costs as laid down by law.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its ruling on his application, by which he sought the annulment of the Commission’s refusal of the request made by him for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the Commission’s rejection dated 14.9.2009 of his complaint made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
In particular, the appellant claims an infringement of his procedural rights and an infringement of Community law since, first, the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), erring in its assessment of the evidence, erred by entirely failing to examine whether evidence had been unlawfully taken into account when the Commission proceeded to change his employment status without adopting the administrative act necessary for that change. Second, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not observe the principles which govern the taking of evidence and the burden of proof since notwithstanding the fact that the appellant produced the document which proved his unlawful transfer, the Tribunal did not request, as required under Article 55 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, from the Commission at any stage of the proceedings the production of evidence which would refute the above position. Third, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not examine the reality of his employment status as that is revealed in the Sysper and Sysper 2 systems and on what legal basis the representation of him to be found there was supported in order to rule on whether that constitutes psychological harassment of him and falsification of evidence
Case T-602/11: Action brought on 22 November 2011 — Pêra-Grave v OHIM — Fundação De Almeida (QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA)
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2012032EN.01003002.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/30





Action brought on 22 November 2011 — Pêra-Grave v OHIM — Fundação De Almeida (QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA)
(Case T-602/11)
2012/C 32/63
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Pêra-Grave Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal, Lda (Évora, Portugal) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fundação Eugénio De Almeida (Évora, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 September 2011 in case R 1797/2010-2 with the consequence that the opposition directed against the trade mark applied for will be rejected in its entirety and therefore the registration of the trade mark applied for will be allowed in its entirety; and










—


Order the defendant to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant in connection of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 7291669

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 283684 of the figurative mark ‘VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO’, for goods in class 33; Portuguese trade mark registration No 308864 of the figurative mark ‘VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO’, for goods in class 33; Portuguese trade mark application No 405797 of the figurative mark ‘PÊRAMANCA’, for goods in class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the opposition and the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application for all the contested goods

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) erred in law in diminishing the overall weight of the numerous visual, aural and conceptual dissimilarities between the signs and in increasing and therefore overestimating the overall impact of the only common element they contain, the verbal elements ‘PERA’ and ‘MANCA’; and (ii) misapplied the principles and the approach established by the General Court in case T-332/05 ‘TERRANUS/TERRA’ to the case sub judice and wrongly considered that the degree of overall similarity between the confronted signs was sufficient to lead to a likelihood of confusion.
Case C-214/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — KHS AG v Winfried Schulte (Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Lapse of right to paid annual leave not taken because of illness on the expiry of a period laid down by national rules)
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, arrangement of working time, incapacity for work, paid leave








C_2012025EN.01000802.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/8






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — KHS AG v Winfried Schulte
(Case C-214/10) (1)

(Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Lapse of right to paid annual leave not taken because of illness on the expiry of a period laid down by national rules)
(2012/C 25/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KHS AG

Defendant: Winfried Schulte

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Right to payment in lieu of untaken paid annual leave of a worker who could not exercise his right to paid annual leave, on account of sick leave, during the reference period and whose unfitness for work persisted for several years until the end of his employment relationship — Collective agreement allowing payment in lieu of paid annual leave which has not been taken to be made only at the end of the employment relationship and providing that entitlement to paid annual leave which has not been taken because of illness lapses 15 months after the end of the reference period.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions or practices, such as collective agreements, which limit, by a carry-over period of 15 months on the expiry of which the right to paid annual leave lapses, the accumulation of entitlement to such leave of a worker who is unfit for work for several consecutive reference periods.


(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
Case T-561/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012013EN.01001402.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/14





Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)
(Case T-561/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 13/29
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2010 (Case R 1027/2010-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DIRECT DRIVE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6321 — Buitenfood/Ad van Geloven Holding/JV) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, merger control, oil industry








C_2011341EN.01000601.xml










22.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6321 — Buitenfood/Ad van Geloven Holding/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 341/07






1.


On 16 November 2011 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings NPM Capital N.V. (‘NPM’, the Netherlands), a subsidiary of SHV Holdings N.V. (‘SHV’, the Netherlands) and Lion Capital LLP (‘Lion’, United Kingdom) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture (‘the JV’, the Netherlands) controlling Buitenfood B.V. (‘Buitenfood’, the Netherlands), previously owned by NPM, and Ad van Geloven Holding B.V. (‘AvG’, the Netherlands), previously owned by Lion, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for NPM: private equity investment in various industry sectors,










—


for SHV: trade and distribution of liquefied petroleum gas, trade in food and non-food consumer articles, provision of private equity, exploration and production of oil and gas, heavy lifting and renewable energy,










—


for Lion: private equity investment, mainly in companies that are engaged in the production and/or sale of consumer branded goods,










—


for Buitenfood: production and sale of frozen snacks for the retail market and out-of-home market; production of private label frozen snack products for retailers and wholesalers on the out-of-home market,










—


for AvG: production and sale of frozen snacks for the retail market and out-of-home market; production of private label frozen snack products for retailers and wholesalers on the out-of-home market,










—


for the JV: production and sale of frozen snacks mainly in the Netherlands and Belgium.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6321 — Buitenfood/Ad van Geloven Holding/JV, 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’).
Case C-582/10: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Austrian Republic
Date: 2011-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EU law - national law, inland transport, transport of dangerous goods








C_2012049EN.01002202.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/22





Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Austrian Republic
(Case C-582/10) (1)

2012/C 49/39
Language of the case: German
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.