do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-640/11: Action brought on 16 December 2011 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE)
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012058EN.01001002.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/10





Action brought on 16 December 2011 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE)
(Case T-640/11)
2012/C 58/19
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and C. Steudtner, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2011 in case R 756/2011-4;










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RELY-ABLE’ for services in classes 38, 41 and 42 — International Registration (IR) No 1044333

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the protection of the mark in the European Union for all the services applied for.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the sign applied for is ‘not particularly fanciful or arbitrary’ and an ‘obvious misspelling of the word reliable’ with the result that it would be perceived as laudatory. It further erred when assuming that misspellings are ‘a frequent feature of promotional messages’ and that this was relevant to the case at hand.
Case T-203/10: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations — Existing aid — Decision accepting Member State’s commitments — Decision declaring new aid compatible — Action for annulment — Not individually concerned — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, building subsidy, control of State aid, subsidised housing








C_2012049EN.01002401.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/24





Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission
(Case T-203/10) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations - Existing aid - Decision accepting Member State’s commitments - Decision declaring new aid compatible - Action for annulment - Not individually concerned - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 49/43
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Stichting Woonpunt (Beek, Netherlands); Stichting Com.wonen (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Woningstichting Haag Wonen (The Hague, Netherlands); and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, E. Henny and T. Ottervanger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Noë and S. Thomas, Agents, and by H. Gilliams, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV and the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed;










3.


Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;










4.


Vesteda Groep and the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 December 2011 in the case of Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State (Case E-19/11)
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, State monopoly, alcohol, import restriction, indemnification, infringement of EU law, retail selling








C_2012136EN.01000901.xml










11.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/9





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 December 2011 in the case of Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State
(Case E-19/11)
2012/C 136/06
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 December 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 26 December 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:






1.


Does it contravene Article 11 or the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area if a Contracting Party provides in legislation, or through administrative acts, that a body exercising a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol may refuse to accept for sale in its retail outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine?










2.


If the EFTA Court considers that an arrangement such as that described in the first question constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports, or a measure having equivalent effects, in the sense of Article 11 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, then an answer is requested to the question of whether such an arrangement may nevertheless be regarded as justified with reference to Article 13 of the Agreement.










3.


If an arrangement such as that described in the first question is regarded as being in contravention of Article 11 or the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, then an answer is requested to the question of whether the EFTA Court considers (to the extent to which it assesses such questions), that the conditions, which the Plaintiff must fulfil in order to acquire a right to compensation from the EFTA State due to a violation of the Agreement, are met.
Case T-109/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIVITAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PROTIVITAL — Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Concept of a provision to the contrary — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002002.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/20





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)
(Case T-109/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROTIVITAL - Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Concept of a provision to the contrary - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)
2012/C 32/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France) (represented by: F. Baujoin, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 1660/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.
Case T-527/10: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2012227EN.01002002.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/20





Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail)
(Case T-527/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 227/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Google, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: G-mail GmbH (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: S. Eble, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2010 (Case R 342/2010-4) in relation to opposition proceedings between Giersch Ventures LLC and Google, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6434 — Teekay/Marubeni/Maersk LNG)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, maritime transport, merger control, transport company








C_2011367EN.01000901.xml










16.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/9





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6434 — Teekay/Marubeni/Maersk LNG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 367/04
On 12 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 32011M6434. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-488/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — France v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial contribution — Community structural assistance in Martinique — Action for annulment — Public contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ — Concept of sports, recreation and leisure facilities — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Martinique, administrative contract, financial aid, intervention policy, sociocultural facilities, suspension of aid








C_2012032EN.01002403.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/24





Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — France v Commission
(Case T-488/10) (1)

(ERDF - Reduction of financial contribution - Community structural assistance in Martinique - Action for annulment - Public contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ - Concept of sports, recreation and leisure facilities - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)
2012/C 32/49
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytè, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/205/10 — Administrators (AD 7)
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), tax collection








CA2011367EN.01000301.xml










16.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 367/3





RESERVE LIST (1)

OPEN COMPETITION
EPSO/AD/205/10
ADMINISTRATORS (AD 7)
(2011/C 367 A/02)
Taxation






BUONO


Dario




BUSSINK


Jannetje




DANIELESCU


Dan-George




GUILLOU


Morgan




HEMMELGARN


Thomas




HRDINKOVA


Milena




KOLESHANSKA


Malina




LANZA


Costantino




LAPALUS


Bertrand




MITROGIANNI


Ioanna




MOLES PALLEJA


Pere




MUNIZ SANCHEZ


Maria Del Carmen




ROCHALA


Agnieszka




TILSTRA


Jaap Walter




The reserve list will be valid until 12 October 2014.


(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.
Case C-646/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, case-law (EU), interpretation of the law, public administration








C_2012065EN.01000601.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/6





Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission
(Case C-646/11 P)
2012/C 65/11
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, V. Edwards)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety,










—


Give final judgment on the matter,










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:






—


The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU.










—


The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist.










—


The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011367EN.01001001.xml










16.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/10





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 December 2011
2011/C 367/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3019




JPY


Japanese yen


101,30




DKK


Danish krone


7,4322




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83935




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0708




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2261




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7675




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,534




HUF


Hungarian forint


302,25




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6973




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5350




RON


Romanian leu


4,3408




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4455




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3103




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3480




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1320




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7299




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6995




KRW


South Korean won


1 505,81




ZAR


South African rand


10,9102




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2587




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5085




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 860,77




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1508




PHP


Philippine peso


57,398




RUB


Russian rouble


41,4665




THB


Thai baht


40,797




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4226




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9662




INR


Indian rupee


69,7000






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-135/11: Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: contract, servant (EU), temporary employment








C_2012065EN.01002401.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/24





Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency
(Case F-135/11)
2012/C 65/45
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 30 May 2011 by which EMA refused to examine whether it was possible to renew the applicant’s contract;










—


Order EMA to pay the applicant, subject to increase, EUR 1 provisionally;










—


Order EMA to pay the costs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2011 of 16 December 2011 on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat
Date: 2011-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, import (EU), import licence, poultrymeat, tariff quota








L_2011335EN.01007401.xml










17.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 335/74








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1329/2011
of 16 December 2011
         
on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat


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),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2011 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2012 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 December 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






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

(2)  
            OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

(3)  
            OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.




ANNEX







Group No


Order No


Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2012-31.3.2012
(%)




1


09.4410


0,339444 




3


09.4412


0,379075 




4


09.4420


0,385208 




6


09.4422


0,388953