do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-152/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALIA — Earlier Community figurative mark ALAÏA PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012025EN.01004902.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/49






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA)
(Case T-152/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALIA - Earlier Community figurative mark ALAÏA PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
(2012/C 25/94)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, M.E. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Azzedine Alaïa (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Holah, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 924/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Azzedine Alaïa and El Corte Inglés, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 924/2008-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal excluded the goods in Class 3 corresponding to the description ‘Perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’ from its analysis of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, OHIM and Mr Azzedine Alaïa each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
Case C-628/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2011 — Proceedings for a financial penalty against International Jet Management GmbH
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, air traffic, equal treatment, fine, interpretation of the law, patents licence








C_2012080EN.01000901.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2011 — Proceedings for a financial penalty against International Jet Management GmbH
(Case C-628/11)
2012/C 80/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig

Parties to the main proceedings

International Jet Management GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does it fall within the scope of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 18 TFEU (formerly Article 12 EC) if a Member State (Federal Republic of Germany) requires an airline to obtain permission to make inward flights in respect of charter flights (commercial flights in non-scheduled traffic) from non-member countries into the territory of that Member State, where that airline holds a valid operating licence within the meaning of Articles 3 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, issued in another Member State (Republic of Austria)?










2.


If the reply to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the requirement for permission in itself contrary to Article 18 TFEU (formerly Article 12 EC) if permission to make an inward flight, the obtaining of which can be enforced by means of an administrative fine, is required for flight services from non-member countries by airlines which have received an operating licence in the other Member States, but not by airlines with an operating licence in the Federal Republic of Germany?










3.


If the case falls within the scope of Article 18 TFEU (formerly Article 12 EC) (question 1) but the requirement for permission is not itself found to be discriminatory (question 2), may the grant of permission to make an inward flight in respect of the appellant’s flight services from non-member countries to the Federal Republic of Germany be made conditional, on pain of an administrative fine, and without breaching the prohibition of discrimination, on whether the airline of the Member State proves to the authority which grants permission that airlines with an operating licence in the Federal Republic of Germany are not in a position to carry out the flights (non-availability declaration)?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6421 — Daimler/Europcar/car2go Europe JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, vehicle rental








C_2011357EN.01001201.xml










7.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6421 — Daimler/Europcar/car2go Europe JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 357/05






1.


On 25 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 undertaking Europcar Groupe SA (‘Europcar’, France), belonging to Eurazeo SA (France) and car2go GmbH (‘car2go’ Germany), subsidiary of Daimler AG (‘Daimler’, Germany), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of car2go Europe GmbH (‘car2go Europe’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Europcar: car rental services in different EEA-member states and worldwide. Europcar belongs to Eurazeo, a French listed investment company which invests in companies active in numerous sectors such as hotels, textile rental services or real estate,










—


for car2go: founded to carry out a pilot project in the short-term car rental market and to afterwards carry out the world-wide roll out of the business for Daimler. Daimler is a worldwide active producer of automobiles and commercial vehicles,










—


for car2go Europe: short term car rental services in several cities and metropolitan areas within the EEA.














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.6421 — Daimler/Europcar/car2go Europe 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’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case T-138/11: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Ahouma v Council (Death of the applicant — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, death, human rights, international sanctions








C_2012039EN.01001303.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/13






Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Ahouma v Council
(Case T-138/11) (1)

(Death of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)
(2012/C 39/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Brouha Nathanaël Ahouma (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate.










2.


The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.










3.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire.






(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers (recast)’ COM(2011) 566 final — 2011/0243 (COD)
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: coastal protection, man-made disaster, maritime safety, oil pollution, prevention of pollution, safety standard, tanker, technical standard








C_2012043EN.01009801.xml










15.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/98





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers (recast)’
COM(2011) 566 final — 2011/0243 (COD)
2012/C 43/22
On 29 September 2011 the European Parliament and on 18 October 2011 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers (Recast)

COM(2011) 566 final — 2011/0243 (COD).
Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 476th plenary session of 7 and 8 December 2011 (meeting of 7 December), by 177 votes with 11 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 7 December 2011.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON
Case T-562/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — HTTS v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Procedure by default — Application to intervene — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, arms control, capital movement, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear weapon








C_2012025EN.01005001.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/50






Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — HTTS v Council
(Case T-562/10) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Procedure by default - Application to intervene - No need to adjudicate)
(2012/C 25/96)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: HTTS (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and Z. Kupčová, Agents)

Re:

Partial annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany;










2.


Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH;










3.


Maintains the effects of Regulation No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant for a period of no more than two months from the date of delivery of this judgment;










4.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping.






(1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6420 — Dong Energy/Shell Gas Direct)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, gas supply, merger control








C_2011357EN.01000101.xml










7.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6420 — Dong Energy/Shell Gas Direct)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 357/01
On 1 December 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 32011M6420. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-274/11 P: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — VE (*) v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Contractual agents — Expatriation allowance — Conditions imposed by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Notion of habitual residence — Distortion of the facts — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, expatriate worker, indemnification, residence, servant (EU)




C_2012039EN.01001402.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/14






Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 —  VE (*1) v Commission
(Case T-274/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Contractual agents - Expatriation allowance - Conditions imposed by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Notion of habitual residence - Distortion of the facts - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
(2012/C 39/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant(s): VE (*1) (represented by L. Vogel, lawyer)

Other party/parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F-28/10  VE (*1) v Commission [2011] ECR-SC I-A-I-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


 VE (*1) will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.






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

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
Case T-255/11: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Fellah v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, common foreign and security policy, dictatorship, financing, international sanctions








C_2012039EN.01001401.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/14






Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Fellah v Council
(Case T-255/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
(2012/C 39/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant(s): Zakaria Fellah (New York, USA) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.










3.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU waters, Poland, catch by species, catch quota, common fisheries policy, sea fish








C_2011357EN.01001101.xml










7.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/11





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2011/C 357/04
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


15.11.2011




Duration


15.11.2011-31.12.2011




Member State


Poland




Stock or Group of stocks


HER/3D25.; HER/3D26.; HER/3D27.; HER/3D28.; HER/3D29.; HER/3D32. (HER/3D-R30)




Species


Herring (Clupea harengus)




Zone


EU waters of Subdivisions 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


—




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 F-35/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 December 2011 — Svitana v Parliament
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, indemnification, pay, rights of civil servants








C_2012138EN.01004007.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/40






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 December 2011 — Svitana v Parliament
(Case F-35/11) (1)

(2012/C 138/105)
Language of the case: Slovakian
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 33.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011357EN.01000201.xml










7.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 December 2011
2011/C 357/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3394




JPY


Japanese yen


104,15




DKK


Danish krone


7,4348




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85655




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0552




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2388




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7160




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,230




HUF


Hungarian forint


300,20




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6978




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4548




RON


Romanian leu


4,3540




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4618




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3094




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3640




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4095




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7209




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7223




KRW


South Korean won


1 513,76




ZAR


South African rand


10,7993




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4847




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5100




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 124,79




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1990




PHP


Philippine peso


58,111




RUB


Russian rouble


41,8780




THB


Thai baht


41,294




BRL


Brazilian real


2,3995




MXN


Mexican peso


18,1040




INR


Indian rupee


68,7310






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-45/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2011 — Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of a Community trade mark consisting of a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b))
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, rail transport, trade-mark law








C_2012109EN.01000302.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/3





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2011 — Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-45/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of a Community trade mark consisting of a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b))
2012/C 109/05
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Deutsche Bahn AG (represented by: Schmidt-Hern, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party/parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 in Case T-404/09 Deutsche Bahn v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register a colour sign consisting of a combination of the colours grey and red as a Community trade mark for certain services in Class 39 — Distinctive character of a sign which is a combination of colours

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Deutsche Bahn AG is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.