do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (COM(2011)0446 – C7-0208/2011 – 2011/0193(COD))#P7_TC1-COD(2011)0193 Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 December 2011 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No …/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: amendment of a law, pre-accession aid, proposal (EU)








CE2013168EN.01015201.xml










14.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 168/152





Wednesday 14 December 2011Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance ***I
P7_TA(2011)0566
European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (COM(2011)0446 – C7-0208/2011 – 2011/0193(COD))
2013/C 168 E/39
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0446),










—


having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 212(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0208/2011),










—


having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0397/2011),










1.


Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;










2.


Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;










3.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






Wednesday 14 December 2011P7_TC1-COD(2011)0193
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 December 2011 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No …/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 153/2012).
Case T-639/11: Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, holding company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012049EN.01002902.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/29





Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
(Case T-639/11)
2012/C 49/53
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Heads! GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2011 in Case R 2348/2010-1 in so far as the registration of trade mark No 8327926 ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35 (Business management; Business administration; Personnel and management consulting services; Personnel marketing; Recruitment of specialist and senior staff; Provision of temporary specialist and senior staff (temporary management)) was refused;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character and since the Board of Appeal did not make any specific findings with regard to the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on which its decision is based; wrongfully took as a basis for its assessment word combinations not covered by the application for registration; wrongly relied on a decision of the (German) Federal Patent Court; and the conclusions drawn from the presumed point of view of the target public do not apply.
Case T-425/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Mixfront) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Mixfront — 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.01002401.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/24





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Mixfront)
(Case T-425/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Mixfront - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 32/47
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: S. Schäffner, subsequently by: R. Manea and finally by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 338/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Mixfront 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 317, 20.11.2010.
Special Report No 12/2011 ‘Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?’
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: catch of fish, fishing fleet








C_2011364EN.01001401.xml










14.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/14





Special Report No 12/2011 ‘Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?’
2011/C 364/07
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2011 ‘Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Numerical strength of delegations European Parliament decision of 14 December 2011 on the numerical strength of the interparliamentary delegations, delegations to joint parliamentary committees and delegations to parliamentary cooperation committees and multilateral Parliamentary Assemblies (2011/2839(RSO))
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EP Committee, EP delegation, appointment of members, composition of a parliamentary committee, decision-making body (EU), interinstitutional cooperation (EU), interparliamentary delegation








CE2013168EN.01013201.xml










14.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 168/132





Wednesday 14 December 2011Numerical strength of delegations
P7_TA(2011)0571
European Parliament decision of 14 December 2011 on the numerical strength of the interparliamentary delegations, delegations to joint parliamentary committees and delegations to parliamentary cooperation committees and multilateral Parliamentary Assemblies (2011/2839(RSO))
2013/C 168 E/20

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents,










—


having regard to its Decision of 14 September 2009 on the numerical strength of the interparliamentary delegations, delegations to joint parliamentary committees and delegations to parliamentary cooperation committees and multilateral Parliamentary Assemblies (1),










—


having regard to Rule 198 of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas there is a need for continuity in its business,










B.


whereas, following the entry into force of the protocol amending Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, new Members are entitled to sit in the European Parliament and on its bodies in full enjoyment of their rights,










1.


Decides to amend the number of Members in the interparliamentary delegations as follows:






 


Delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula: 18 members










 


Delegation for relations with India: 28 members










 


Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula: 17 members










 


Delegation for relations with South Africa: 17 members














2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.






(1)  OJ C 224 E, 19.8.2010, p. 36.
Case C-641/11: Action brought on 14 December 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, free movement of workers, infringement of EU law, residence








C_2012058EN.01000501.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/5





Action brought on 14 December 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-641/11)
2012/C 58/06
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and L. Pignataro)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by retaining as a condition for priority in the selection of candidates at least two years residence in the province of Bolzano, as provided for in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; (1)











—


Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission complains about the inclusion of a provision affording priority in the selection of candidates on the basis of at least two years residence in the province of Bolzano (Trentino Alto Adige), a provision which is contrary to the obligations imposed by Article 45 TFEU and also by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 492/2011. The Commission recalls that, according to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the equal treatment rule laid down in Article 45 TFEU prohibits not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result (see, in particular, Case C-237/94 O’Flynn (1996) ECR I-2617, paragraph 17). That concerns, inter alia, a measure which draws a distinction on the basis of residence.
In their reply to the reasoned opinion of 6 August 2010, the Italian authorities admitted that ‘(t)he residence clause contained in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976 could contain elements of indirect discrimination and therefore be contrary to Article 45 TFEU’ and that ‘(i)n order to resolve this problem, the text of the article will be amended without further ado’. The Commission has not hitherto received any information concerning the amendment in question and therefore concludes that the residence condition provided for in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976 is still in force.


(1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.
Appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank: Mr Coeuré European Parliament decision of 14 December 2011 on the Council recommendation for appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (17227/2011 – C7-0459/2011 – 2011/0819(NLE))
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU), professional qualifications








CE2013168EN.01015502.xml










14.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 168/155





Wednesday 14 December 2011Appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank: Mr Coeuré
P7_TA(2011)0572
European Parliament decision of 14 December 2011 on the Council recommendation for appointment of a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (17227/2011 – C7-0459/2011 – 2011/0819(NLE))
2013/C 168 E/43
(Consultation)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 1 December 2011 (17227/2011),










—


having regard to Article 283(2), second subparagraph of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the European Council consulted Parliament (C7-0459/2011),










—


having regard to Rule 109 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0443/2011),










A.


whereas, by letter of 1 December 2011, the European Council consulted the European Parliament on the appointment of Benoît Coeuré as a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years;










B.


whereas Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the light of the need for full independence of the European Central Bank pursuant to Article 130 TFEU, and whereas in carrying out this evaluation, the committee received a curriculum vitae from the candidate as well as his replies to the written questionnaire that was sent to him;










C.


whereas the committee subsequently held a one-and-a-half-hour hearing with the nominee on 12 December 2011, at which he made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the committee;










1.


Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council recommendation to appoint Benoît Coeuré as a Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank;










2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the European Council, the Council and the governments of the Member States.
Case T-531/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Vorfront) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Vorfront — Absolute ground for refusal — 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.01002501.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/25





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Vorfront)
(Case T-531/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Vorfront - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 32/50
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: S. Schäffner, subsequently by: R. Manea and finally by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 570/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Vorfront 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 30, 29.1.2011.
Case C-640/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 December 2011 — E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy production, interpretation of the law, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2012039EN.01001201.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/12






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 December 2011 — E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State
(Case C-640/11)
(2012/C 39/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: E.ON Generación, S.L., Iberdrola, S.A., and Spanish State

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.
Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2011 in Case E-8/11 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise)
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, infringement of EU law, noise protection








C_2012291EN.01001601.xml










27.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 291/16





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 December 2011
in Case E-8/11
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise)
2012/C 291/07
In Case E-8/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to ensure that its competent authorities have made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drawn-up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive are sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that, by failing to ensure that within the time-limits prescribed its competent authorities made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drew up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive were sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
2012/18/EU: Council Decision of 14 December 2011 establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization on the accession of Samoa to the WTO
Date: 2011-12-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Samoa, World Trade Organisation, accession to an agreement, enlargement of an international organisation, international negotiations, liberalisation of the market, liberalisation of trade








L_2012006EN.01000701.xml










10.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 6/7








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 14 December 2011
         
establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization on the accession of Samoa to the WTO
(2012/18/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, Article 100(2) and Article 207, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 April 1998 the Government of Samoa applied for accession to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), pursuant to Article XII of that Agreement.












(2)


A Working Party on the accession of Samoa was established on 15 July 1998 in order to reach agreement on terms of accession acceptable to Samoa and all WTO Members.












(3)


The Commission, on behalf of the Union, has negotiated a comprehensive series of market opening commitments on the part of Samoa which satisfy the Union’s requests and are in line with the development level of Samoa.












(4)


These commitments are now embodied in the Protocol of Accession of Samoa to the WTO.












(5)


Accession to the WTO is expected to make a positive and lasting contribution to the process of economic reform and sustainable development in Samoa.












(6)


The Protocol of Accession should therefore be approved.












(7)


Article XII of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that the terms of accession are to be agreed between the acceding Member and the WTO, and that the WTO Ministerial Conference approves the terms of accession on the WTO side.












(8)


Accordingly, it is necessary to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the WTO Ministerial Conference on the accession of Samoa to the WTO,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization on the accession of Samoa to the WTO is to approve the accession.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Geneva, on 14 December 2011.


For the Council


The President

M. NOGAJ