do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 149/2012 of 20 February 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Limone di Rocca Imperiale (PGI))
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, citrus fruit, designation of origin, product designation








L_2012048EN.01001101.xml










21.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 48/11








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 149/2012
of 20 February 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Limone di Rocca Imperiale (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)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Limone di Rocca Imperiale’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th 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, 20 February 2012.


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 C 157, 27.5.2011, p. 10.




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

1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY
Limone di Rocca Imperiale (PGI)
Case C-88/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Roermond (Netherlands), lodged on 20 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Jibril Jaoo
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, Schengen Agreement, border control, foreign national








C_2012126EN.01000702.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Roermond (Netherlands), lodged on 20 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Jibril Jaoo
(Case C-88/12)
2012/C 126/14
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Roermond

Party to the main proceedings

Jibril Jaoo

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 4.17a of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Decree on Foreign Nationals 2000) contravene the prohibition of border checks or the prohibition of checks equivalent to border checks within the terms, respectively, of Articles 20 and 21 of the Schengen Borders Code? (1)











2.


If so, are non-EU citizens or persons who do not have a residence permit for one of the Member States of the EU also entitled to rely thereon?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 148/2012 of 20 February 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI))
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, designation of origin, potato, product designation








L_2012048EN.01000901.xml










21.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 48/9








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 148/2012
of 20 February 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (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)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th 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, 20 February 2012.


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 C 144, 14.5.2011, p. 32.




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

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

UNITED KINGDOM
New Season Comber Potatoes/Comber Earlies (PGI)
Case C-85/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Landsbanki Islands HF v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: credit institution, economic reconstruction, interpretation of the law, liquidation








C_2012118EN.01001901.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Landsbanki Islands HF v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux
(Case C-85/12)
2012/C 118/30
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Landsbanki Islands HF

Defendants: Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (1) be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial establishment, such as those under Icelandic Law No 44/2009 of 15 April 2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by a administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles?










2.


Must Article 32 of Directive 2001/24/EC be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 98 of the Icelandic law of 20 December 2002, which prohibited or suspended any legal action against a financial establishment as from the entry into force of a moratorium, from having effect in regard to interim protective measures adopted in another Member State prior to the declaration of the moratorium?






(1)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).
Case C-86/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European citizenship, dependant, foreign national, parental authority, residence permit








C_2012138EN.01000301.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/3






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
(Case C-86/12)
(2012/C 138/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative (Luxembourg)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Questions referred

Is Article 20 TFEU — if necessary, read in conjunction with Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or with one or more of those provisions read separately or in conjunction — to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing a third-country national, with sole responsibility for his or her infants who are citizens of the European Union, residence in the Member State of residence of the children, where they have been living with that person since birth, without having that nationality, while refusing the third-country national a residence permit, or even a work permit?
Are such decisions to be regarded as being in the nature of decisions depriving those children, in their country of residence, in which they have lived since birth, of effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the European Union also in the situation where their other direct ascendant, with whom they have never shared family life, is resident in another Member State of the European Union, of which that person is a national?
Case T-82/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, fundamental rights, international sanctions, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012109EN.01003102.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/31





Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-82/12)
2012/C 109/63
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)



(1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p. 30.
Case C-87/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, family migration, residence permit








C_2012138EN.01000302.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/3






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration
(Case C-87/12)
(2012/C 138/05)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga

Defendant: Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration

Question referred

To what extent does the fact of being a citizen of the Union and the related right to reside in the country of which a Union citizen is a national, as provided for by Article 20 of the TFEU, along with the rights, guarantees and obligations laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in particular and insofar as is relevant, in Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34, confer a right to family reunification upon a sponsor who is a citizen of the Union and wishes to bring about, in the country in which he resides and of which he holds the nationality, the reunification with himself of his mother and father and two of his brothers, all of whom are third-country nationals, where he has not exercised his right to free movement and has not resided in a Member State other than that of which he holds the nationality?
Case T-83/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Chico's Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO'S)
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012118EN.01003002.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/30





Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Chico's Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO'S)
(Case T-83/12)
2012/C 118/51
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Chico's Brands Investments, Inc. (Fort Myers, United States) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artsana SpA (Grandate, Italy)

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 27 October 2011 in case R 2084/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHICO’S’, for goods and services in classes 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1585579

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trade mark registration No 420865 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25; Italian trade mark registration No 846672/380042 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 763084 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15(1)(a), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the opponent’s evidence proved genuine use of the earlier mark in Italy. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the CTM application and the earlier mark.
Case F-23/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, admission to examinations, competition (EU)








C_2012138EN.01003503.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/35






Action brought on 20 February 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
(Case F-23/12)
(2012/C 138/82)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/204/10 refusing to admit the applicants to the next stage of the competition.

Form of order sought







—


Order the defendant to produce all the reports of the meetings of the EPSO Heads of Unit and all the minutes of the Selection Board’s meetings in relation to competition EPSO/AD/204/10;










—


annul the decisions of 13 April 2011 of the Selection Board in competition EPSO/AD/204/10;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-94/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, D. I. Mannocchi Luigino v Provincia di Fermo
Date: 2012-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, invitation to tender








C_2012151EN.01001501.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, D. I. Mannocchi Luigino v Provincia di Fermo
(Case C-94/12)
2012/C 151/24
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, D. I. Mannocchi Luigino

Defendant: Provincia di Fermo

Question referred

Must Article 47(2) of Directive 18/2004/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding, in principle, the legislation of a Member State, such as the Italian legislation set out in Article 49(6) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006, which prohibits, except in special circumstances, reliance on the capacities of more than one auxiliary undertaking, and provides that ‘[f]or works contracts, the tenderer may rely on the capacities of only one auxiliary undertaking for each qualification category. The invitation to tender may permit reliance on the capacities of more than one auxiliary undertaking on account of the value of the contract or the special nature of the services to be provided …’?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.