do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 143/2012 of 17 February 2012 on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of February 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beef, import (EU), import licence, tariff quota








L_2012047EN.01002401.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 47/24








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 143/2012
of 17 February 2012
         
on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of February 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009


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,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) sets out detailed rules for the submission and issue of import licences.












(2)


Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides that in cases where quantities covered by licence applications exceed the quantities available for the quota period, allocation coefficients should be fixed for the quantities covered by each licence application. The applications for import licences submitted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 between 1 and 7 February 2012 exceed the quantities available. Therefore, the extent to which import licences may be issued and the allocation coefficient should be determined,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Import licence applications covered by the quota with order number 09.4449 and submitted between 1 and 7 February 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 0,392215 %.


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, 17 February 2012.


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 182, 15.7.2009, p. 25.
Case T-72/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Bank Mellat v Council
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, financing, fundamental rights, international sanctions, nuclear policy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012109EN.01002802.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/28





Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Bank Mellat v Council
(Case T-72/12)
2012/C 109/58
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and










—


Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;










—


Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of its property rights and the principle of proportionality.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council is successful, this application must also succeed.






(1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

(3)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

(4)  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)
Case T-69/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, financing, fundamental rights, international sanctions, nuclear policy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012109EN.01002602.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/26





Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council
(Case T-69/12)
2012/C 109/55
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;










—


Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Regulation 1245/2011 (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;










—


Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783/CFSP, inapplicable to the applicant;










—


Declare Article 16(2) of Regulation 961/2010, as implemented by Regulation 1245/2011, inapplicable to the applicant; and










—


Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the present action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging






—


that the criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case;














2.


Second plea in law, alleging






—


that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human an fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality;














3.


Third plea in law, alleging






—


that restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the Council in violation of the Council’s procedural obligations and the applicant’s right of defence;














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging






—


that insofar as the listed banks’ respective applications for annulment of their respective designations are successful, the applicant’s own designation must be annulled.










(1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)
Case F-22/12: Action brought on 17th February 2012 — ZZ v Commission and CEPOL
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, Philippines, damages, education grant, family benefit, indemnification, rights of civil servants








C_2012138EN.01003502.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/35






Action brought on 17th February 2012 — ZZ v Commission and CEPOL
(Case F-22/12)
(2012/C 138/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European Police College

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant’s demand to be granted the dependent child and education allowances for his wife's three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines.

Form of order sought







—


The annulment of the implicit decision of 25th March 2011 and of the explicit decision adopted by PMO on 11th July 2011, confirmed by the decision of 9th November 2011 rejecting the complaint, insofar as they reject the request of the applicant to be granted the dependent child and education allowances for his wife's three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines;










—


as a consequence, the recognition of the applicant's entitlement to the said allowances;










—


the compensation of the applicant's material prejudice consisting of retroactive payment of the dependent child and education allowances since 1st April 2009, provisionally evaluated at 33 673,31 euros, with late interest at the European Central Bank key rate plus two percentage points;










—


the compensation of the applicant's moral prejudice evaluated at 20 000 euros;










—


the order for the defending parties to pay the costs.
Case C-92/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 17 February 2012 — Health Service Executive v SC, AC
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child protection, children's rights, custody, interpretation of the law








C_2012133EN.01001802.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 17 February 2012 — Health Service Executive v SC, AC
(Case C-92/12)
2012/C 133/33
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Health Service Executive

Defendants: SC, AC

Questions referred







1.


Does a judgment which provides for the detention of a child for a specified time in another Member State in an institution providing therapeutic and educational care come within the material scope of Council Regulation No 2201/2003 (1)?










2.


If the answer to Question one is yes, what obligations, if any, arise out of Article 56 of Council Regulation No 2201/2003 as to the nature of the consultation and consent mechanism to ensure the effective protection of a child who is to be so detained.










3.


Where a Court of a Member State has contemplated the placement of a child for a specified time in a residential care institution in another Member State and has obtained the consent of that State in accordance with Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003, must the judgment of the court directing the placement of a child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member State be recognised and/or declared enforceable in that other Member State as a precondition to the placement being effected?










4.


Does a judgment of the court directing the placement of the child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member State and which has been consented to by that Member State in accordance with Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003 have any legal effect in that other Member State prior to the grant of a declaration of recognition and/or enforceability upon the completion of the proceedings seeking such declaration of recognition and/or enforceability?










5.


Where a judgment of the court directing the placement of the child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member State under Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003 is renewed for a further specified time must the Article 56 consent of the other Member State be obtained upon the occasion of each renewal?










6.


Where a judgment of the court directing the placement of the child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member state under Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003 is renewed for a further specified time must the judgment be recognised and/or enforced in that other Member State upon the occasion of each renewal?






(1)  OJ L 338, p. 1
Case T-78/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes)
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2012109EN.01003002.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/30





Action brought on 17 February 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes)
(Case T-78/12)
2012/C 109/61
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in Case No R 2109/2010-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘LIBERTE brunes’ for goods in Classes 25, 30 and 34 (application No 6 462 171)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ (Community trade mark No 1 456 664) and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ (Community trade mark No 2 433 126) for goods in Classes 14 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012046EN.01000101.xml










17.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 February 2012
2012/C 46/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2982




JPY


Japanese yen


102,31




DKK


Danish krone


7,4331




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82845




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8065




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2072




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5515




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,268




HUF


Hungarian forint


293,90




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6986




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2360




RON


Romanian leu


4,3555




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3048




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2168




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3026




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0678




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5695




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6494




KRW


South Korean won


1 473,04




ZAR


South African rand


10,2131




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1816




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5823




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 701,24




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9744




PHP


Philippine peso


55,785




RUB


Russian rouble


39,3700




THB


Thai baht


40,114




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2552




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8151




INR


Indian rupee


64,1250






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-73/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, export price, import (EU), infringement of EU law, originating product, pump








C_2012109EN.01002901.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/29





Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission
(Case T-73/12)
2012/C 109/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany), Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands), Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France) and Hans Einhell Oesterreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the application admissible;










—


Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8831, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8825, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8828 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8810, all four decision being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicants on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 81, p. 1);










—


Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin for the purposes of establishing the revised dumping margin applicable to the imports in question, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the unrelated supplier when calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the unrelated supplier’s export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the revised dumping margin and the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports From Countries not Members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.
2012/102/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2005/51/EC as regards the period during which soil contaminated by pesticides or persistent organic pollutants may be introduced into the Union for decontamination purposes (notified under document C(2012) 869)
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: derogation from EU law, hazardous waste, import (EU), import licence, organic pollution, pesticide, soil pollution, waste incineration








L_2012048EN.01001501.xml










21.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 48/15








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION
         
of 17 February 2012
         
amending Decision 2005/51/EC as regards the period during which soil contaminated by pesticides or persistent organic pollutants may be introduced into the Union for decontamination purposes
(notified under document C(2012) 869)
(2012/102/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By way of derogation from Directive 2000/29/EC, Commission Decision 2005/51/EC of 21 January 2005 authorising Member States temporarily to provide for derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of the importation of soil contaminated by pesticides or persistent organic pollutants for decontamination purposes (2) authorises, for a limited period, Member States participating in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) programme on prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticides to permit the introduction of soil contaminated by such pesticides into the Union for treatment in dedicated hazardous waste incinerators. That programme is still ongoing.












(2)


In view of the circumstances justifying the derogation granted by Decision 2005/51/EC and in the interest of good legislative practice, it is now appropriate to extend that derogation by 5 years.












(3)


Decision 2005/51/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In the second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 2005/51/EC the words ‘29 February 2012’ are replaced by the words ‘28 February 2017’.


Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 17 February 2012.


For the Commission

John DALLI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 21, 25.1.2005, p. 21.