do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-647/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Dimos Peramatos against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 12 October 2011 in Case T-312/07 Dimos Peramatos v European Commission
Date: 2011-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, afforestation, interpretation of the law, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid








C_2012049EN.01001801.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/18





Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Dimos Peramatos against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 12 October 2011 in Case T-312/07 Dimos Peramatos v European Commission
(Case C-647/11 P)
2012/C 49/30
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment of the General Court inasmuch as it dismisses the action which sought cessation of any obligation on the part of the appellant to refund sums paid within the framework of the project LIFE97/ENV/GR/000380 or, in the alternative, amendment of the contested measure so as to oblige the appellant to pay EUR 93 795,32, the sum determined for accounting purposes as the ineligible expenditure, as the Commission itself acknowledged;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination;










—


order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs including the costs in respect of its lawyers.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its appeal:






1.


Erroneous interpretation both of the terms of the subsidy agreement concluded between Dimos Peramatos and the European Commission on 17 July 1997 under No C(97) 1997/final/29 in the context of performance of action falling within the LIFE Programme and of the agreement’s regulatory framework (Regulation No 1973/92), in so far as the General Court considered that the municipality’s obligation to plant trees, as resulting from the subsidy agreement, was performed deficiently.










2.


Erroneous interpretation and infringement of the principles of good administration and of legal certainty on account of deficient reasoning in the judgment under appeal in the section concerning the obligation to state reasons for unfavourable administrative acts adopted by institutions of the European Union.
Case C-652/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission
Date: 2011-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, damages, infringement of EU law, redemption, rights of the defence








C_2012049EN.01001901.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/19





Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission
(Case C-652/11 P)
2012/C 49/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Mindo Srl (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, G. Mastrantonio, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court, on 5 October 2011, in case T-19/06 Mindo v. Commission and, consequently,










—


Refer the case back to the General Court and order the latter to assess it on the merits, as its judgment deprived Mindo of its right to a full judicial review at the first instance,










—


Order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant's request is based on the following pleas in law:






 


The General Court affirms that Mindo has no interest in pursuing the proceedings, because it could not take any advantage of the annulment of the Contested Judgment in itself, nor in relation to Alliance One International Inc.’s (“Alliance One”) claim for contribution, or to third parties’ follow-on actions for damages.










 


Firstly, the Appellant submits that the above mentioned findings should be annulled, as thy violate the applicable laws, are based on distortion of facts and, in any case, are characterized by insufficient and contradictory reasoning.










 


Secondly, the Appellant argues that the Contested Judgment should be annulled because I either deprives Mindo of its right of access to the court (and consequently of its rights to have its case fully reviewed) or, should the Contested Judgment be interpreted as requiring Mindo and Alliance One to have jointly lodged the application at first instance, it breaches Mindo's and Alliance One's right of defense.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1364/2011 of 19 December 2011 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Speck Alto Adige/Südtiroler Markenspeck/Südtiroler Speck (PGI)]
Date: 2011-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, meat product, pigmeat, product designation








L_2011341EN.01002501.xml










22.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 341/25








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1364/2011
of 19 December 2011
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Speck Alto Adige/Südtiroler Markenspeck/Südtiroler Speck (PGI)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‧Speck Alto Adige‧/‧Südtiroler Markenspeck‧/‧Südtiroler Speck‧, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendments should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of 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, 19 December 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ C 119, 16.4.2011, p. 19.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

ITALY
Speck Alto Adige/Südtiroler Markenspeck/Südtiroler Speck (PGI)
Case C-649/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares
Date: 2011-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, fundamental rights, rights of the defence, wine








C_2012058EN.01000502.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/5





Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares
(Case C-649/11 P)
2012/C 58/07
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, Abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the appeal admissible;










—


set aside in full the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Infringement by the General Court of the duty to state reasons and, in particular, of Article 36 of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 53 thereof.










2.


Infringement of the rights of defence of Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega and of the right to a fair hearing and, in particular, of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.










3.


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case F-136/11: Action brought on 19 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-12-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, exchange of information, transfer of pension rights








C_2012065EN.01002402.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/24





Action brought on 19 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-136/11)
2012/C 65/46
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision fixing, in the Community pension scheme, the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before her entry into service

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 24 May 2011 annulling and replacing the proposal for transfer of the applicant’s pension rights in the context of her request under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which contains a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIP adopted on 3 March 2011;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.