do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-563/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — De Luca v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Staff case — Officials — Appointment to a post in a higher function group following an open competition — Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional provisions — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, administrative competition, appointment of staff, regulations for civil servants








C_2012032EN.01002502.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/25





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — De Luca v Commission
(Case T-563/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Cross-appeal - Staff case - Officials - Appointment to a post in a higher function group following an open competition - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional provisions - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
2012/C 32/51
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the cross-appeals.










2.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000.










3.


Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.










4.


The costs are reserved






(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
Case T-433/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Allen and Others v Commission (Appeal — Staff employed at the JET joint undertaking — Application of a legal status different from that of members of the temporary staff — Compensation for material damage suffered — Time-limits for instituting proceedings — Late submission — Reasonable period)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, indemnification, joint venture, servant (EU)








C_2012032EN.01002402.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/24





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Allen and Others v Commission
(Case T-433/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff employed at the JET joint undertaking - Application of a legal status different from that of members of the temporary staff - Compensation for material damage suffered - Time-limits for instituting proceedings - Late submission - Reasonable period)
2012/C 32/48
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: John Allen (Horspath, United Kingdom) and the 109 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: K. Lasok QC and B. Lask, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 July 2010 in Case F-103/09 Allen and Others v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr John Allen and the 109 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2011 in Case E-3/11 — Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland (Free movement of capital — Article 43 EEA — National restrictions on capital movements — Jurisdiction — Proportionality — Legal certainty)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, central bank, free movement of capital, jurisdiction, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2012291EN.01001501.xml










27.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 291/15





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 December 2011
in Case E-3/11
Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland
(Free movement of capital — Article 43 EEA — National restrictions on capital movements — Jurisdiction — Proportionality — Legal certainty)
2012/C 291/06
In Case E-3/11, Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), concerning the interpretation of Article 43 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
A national measure which prevents inbound transfer into Iceland of Icelandic krónur purchased on the offshore market, is compatible with Article 43(2) and (4) of the EEA Agreement in circumstances such as those in the case before the referring court.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1387/2011 of 14 December 2011 correcting the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, export policy, sugar, trading operation








L_2011345EN.01002001.xml










29.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 345/20








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1387/2011
of 14 December 2011
         
correcting the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector


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) and in particular Article 85 and Article 161(3), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Following the amendment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 (2), by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1055/2009 (3), it was noted that the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 contain an error in Article 7b(3), as regards the starting date for submitting applications for export licences.












(2)


Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should therefore be corrected accordingly.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Concerns only the Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish versions.


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, 14 December 2011.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 24.

(3)  
            OJ L 290, 6.11.2009, p. 64.
Case T-6/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Commission v Vicente Carbajosa and Others (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Non-admission to the written test following the result obtained in the admission tests — Distribution of powers between EPSO and the selection board — Principle of the right to be heard)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, European civil service, administrative competition, admission to examinations, division of powers








C_2012032EN.01002503.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/25





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Commission v Vicente Carbajosa and Others
(Case T-6/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Non-admission to the written test following the result obtained in the admission tests - Distribution of powers between EPSO and the selection board - Principle of the right to be heard)
2012/C 32/52
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendants: Isabel Vicente Carbajosa (Brussels, Belgium); Niina Lehtinen (Brussels); and Myriam Menchén (Brussels) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 in Case F-9/09 Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission [2010] ECRSC I-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 October 2010 in Case F-9/09 Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission in so far as it annuls the decisions of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to admit Ms Isabel Vicente Carbajosa in respect of the competition EPSO/AD/117/08 and Ms Niina Lehtinen and Ms Myriam Menchén in respect of the competition EPSO/AD/116/08 onto the list of candidates invited to submit a full application.










2.


Annuls the decision of EPSO not to admit Ms Vicente Carbajosa in respect of the competition EPSO/AD/117/08 and Ms Lehtinen and Ms Menchén in respect of the competition EPSO/AD/116/08 onto the list of candidates invited to submit a full application.










3.


Orders Ms Vicente Carbajosa, Ms Lehtinen and Ms Menchén and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
Case T-166/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Infront) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Infront — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002601.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/26





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Infront)
(Case T-166/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Infront - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 32/53
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea and subsequently by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 1711/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Infront as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
Joined Cases C-483/11 and C-484/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania) — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11) v Statul român (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 43, 92(1) and 103(1)of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime — Right to compensation for non-material harm suffered — Failure to implement European Union law — Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Communism, damages, dictatorship, indemnification, penalty








C_2012073EN.01001401.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/14





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania) — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11) v Statul român
(Joined Cases C-483/11 and C-484/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 43, 92(1) and 103(1)of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime - Right to compensation for non-material harm suffered - Failure to implement European Union law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)
2012/C 73/24
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeș

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11)

Defendant: Statul român

Intervener: Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu (Case C-484/11)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Argeș — Interpretation of Article 5 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime — Admissibility of national legislation reducing the right to compensation for non-material harm suffered

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania, by decisions of 4 April and 4 July 2011.


(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011
Case T-504/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VÖLKL — Earlier international word mark VÖLKL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Refusal in part of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Competence of the Board of Appeal in the case of an appeal limited to part of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for variation of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002202.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/22





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL)
(Case T-504/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VÖLKL - Earlier international word mark VÖLKL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal in part of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Competence of the Board of Appeal in the case of an appeal limited to part of the goods or services covered by the application for registration - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for variation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 32/43
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marker Völkl International GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1387/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Marker Völkl International GmbH and Völkl GmbH & Co. KG.

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 30 September 2009 (Case R 1387/2008-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Völkl GmbH & Co. KG;










4.


Orders Marker Völkl International GmbH to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
Case T-52/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Nycomed Danmark v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 — Application for a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan — Rejection by the EMA — Misuse of powers)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, medicinal product








C_2012032EN.01001901.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/19





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Nycomed Danmark v EMA
(Case T-52/09) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 - Application for a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan - Rejection by the EMA - Misuse of powers)
2012/C 32/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nycomed Denmark ApS (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented: initially by C. Schoonderbeek and H. Speyart van Woerden, lawyers, and subsequently by C. Schoonderbeek)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and P. Antunes, Agents); Kingdom of Belgium, (represented by T. Materne and C. Pochet, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Ossowski and H. Walker, Agents, and by J. Stratford, Barrister); French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, A. Adam, R. Loosli Surrans and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents); and European Commission (represented by P. Oliver and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 28 November 2008 rejecting the applicant’s application for a specific waiver with respect to perflubutane in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nycomed Danmark ApS to bear its own costs and those of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;










3.


Orders the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Belgium, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
Case T-237/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002302.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/23





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device)
(Case T-237/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 32/45
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Friis Group International ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Friis Group International Aps and Louis Vuitton Malletier

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) of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) in so far as it declared Community trade mark number 3 693 116 invalid for ‘Jewellery, including rings, keyrings, buckles and earrings, cuff links, bracelets, trinkets, brooches, necklaces, ties pins, ornaments, medallions; horological and chronometric instruments and apparatus, including watches, watchcases, alarm clocks; nutcrackers in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith, candlesticks in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith’ in Class 14 and ‘leather and imitations of leather’ and ‘umbrellas’ in Class 18;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier, Friis Group International ApS and OHIM to each bear the costs they have incurred in the course of the proceeding before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.