do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-86/12: Action brought on 21 February 2012 — Robert Group v OHIM — Hardford (Pierre Robert)
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012118EN.01003201.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/32





Action brought on 21 February 2012 — Robert Group v OHIM — Hardford (Pierre Robert)
(Case T-86/12)
2012/C 118/53
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Pierre Robert Group AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Ullberg and M. Plogell, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hardford AB (Limhamn, Sweden)

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 7 December 2011 in case R 2463/2010-1, and consequently order OHIM to evaluate the proof of existence, validity and scope of the earlier mark that the applicant has submitted;










—


Or, alternatively, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal by a decision of its own and refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 8541849 ‘Pierre Robert’; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pierre Robert’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 8541849

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registration No 166274 of the figurative mark ‘Pierre Robert’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76, 8 and 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) has neglected its right to examine the facts of its own motion, and take into consideration facts that are apparently likely to affect the outcome of the opposition; (ii) erred in law when it did not consider that ‘Pierre Robert’ is a well known mark; (iii) failed when not considering the evidence, Annex 1, which was submitted in connection with the filing of the opposition; and (iv) failed when not accepting the certificate from the Swedish Patent and Registration Office filed before the decision of the opposition division.
Case C-93/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 February 2012 — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal to an administrative authority, case-law (EU), common agricultural policy, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, residence, right to justice








C_2012133EN.01001901.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 February 2012 — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia
(Case C-93/12)
2012/C 133/34
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

Questions referred







1.


Are the principle of effectiveness set out in the case-law [of the Court of Justice] of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, considering that that rule does not take into consideration the place in which the properties are located and the place of residence of the person seeking justice?










2.


Is the principle of equivalence set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, if account is taken of paragraph 19 of the transitional and final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Code of Administrative Procedure (which concerns jurisdiction for domestic administrative disputes concerning agricultural land)?
Case T-85/12: Action brought on 21 February 2012 — Lilleborg v OHIM — Hardford (Pierre Robert)
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012118EN.01003101.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/31





Action brought on 21 February 2012 — Lilleborg v OHIM — Hardford (Pierre Robert)
(Case T-85/12)
2012/C 118/52
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Lilleborg AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Ullberg and M. Plogell, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hardford AB (Limhamn, Sweden)

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 7 December 2011 in case R 2462/2010-1, and consequently order OHIM to evaluate the proof of existence, validity and scope of the earlier mark that the applicant has submitted;










—


Or, alternatively, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal by a decision of its own and refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 8541849 ‘Pierre Robert’; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pierre Robert’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 8541849

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registration No 164251 of the word mark ‘PIERRE ROBERT’, for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76, 8 and 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) has neglected its right to examine the facts of its own motion, and take into consideration facts that are apparently likely to affect the outcome of the opposition; (ii) erred in law when it did not consider that ‘PIERRE ROBERT’ is a well known mark; (iii) failed when not considering the evidence, Annex 1, which was submitted in connection with the filing of the opposition; and (iv) failed when not accepting the certificate from the Swedish Patent and Registration Office filed before the decision of the opposition division.
Case F-25/12: Action brought on 21 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, appointment of staff, indemnification, rights of civil servants








C_2012138EN.01003602.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/36






Action brought on 21 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-25/12)
(2012/C 138/84)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Pradal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the dispute

Annulment of the Commission decision refusing the applicant the daily subsistence allowance.

Form of order sought by the applicant







—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) of the European Commission of 21 November 2011 in response to the objection of the applicant to the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) to refuse to grant him the daily subsistence allowance following his entry into service at the European Commission on 1 February 2011;










—


decide to grant the applicant the daily subsistence allowance as provided for in Article 71 of the Statute, Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Statute and Articles 25 and 92 of the CEOS.
Case C-90/12: Action brought on 21 February 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic, airline, equal treatment








C_2012126EN.01000703.xml










28.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/7





Action brought on 21 February 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-90/12)
2012/C 126/15
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by not adopting appropriate measures needed to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles of the directive;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 5 of Regulation No 847/2004 requires Member States to ensure ‘a distribution of traffic rights among eligible [European Union] air carriers on the basis of a non-discriminatory and transparent procedure’. In addition, under Article 6 of the regulation, Member States are obliged to inform the Commission without delay of the procedures applied for the purposes of Article 5. The Commission publishes those procedures in the Official Journal. The carrying out of the procedures referred to in those provisions is dependent upon the adoption of an appropriate implementing regulation by the minister responsible for transport matters. That regulation had still not been adopted when the present action was brought and in any event the Polish authorities have not informed the Commission in that regard. In those circumstances, the Commission assumes that the carrying out of the procedures envisaged in Article 5 of Regulation No 847/2004 and the appropriate notification of the Commission on the basis of Article 6 of the regulation are not possible, given the lack of appropriate provisions in Polish law.


(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 7.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012050EN.01000401.xml










21.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 50/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 February 2012
2012/C 50/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3266




JPY


Japanese yen


105,47




DKK


Danish krone


7,4339




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83640




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8110




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2075




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4880




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,907




HUF


Hungarian forint


287,40




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6982




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1680




RON


Romanian leu


4,3525




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3094




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2303




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3159




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2873




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5777




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6605




KRW


South Korean won


1 488,11




ZAR


South African rand


10,1688




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3511




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5824




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 934,57




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0043




PHP


Philippine peso


56,485




RUB


Russian rouble


39,4734




THB


Thai baht


40,793




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2731




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8306




INR


Indian rupee


65,1820






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
2012/127/EU: Council Recommendation of 21 February 2012 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (eighth EDF) for the financial year 2010
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: ACP countries, European Commission, European Development Fund, budgetary discharge








L_2012055EN.01003201.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 55/32








            COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
         
of 21 February 2012
         
concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (eighth EDF) for the financial year 2010
(2012/127/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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


Having regard to the fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),


Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing and administration of the Community aid under the Second Financial Protocol to the fourth ACP-EC Convention (3) (the ‘Internal Agreement’) setting up, amongst others, the eighth European Development Fund (eighth EDF), and in particular Article 33(3) thereof,


Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998 applicable to development finance cooperation under the fourth ACP-EC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 66 to 74 thereof,


Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the eighth EDF as at 31 December 2010, and the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) (5), concerning the financial year 2010, together with the Commission’s replies contained in that Annual Report,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the eighth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.












(2)


The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the eighth EDF during the financial year 2010 has been satisfactory,







HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the eighth EDF for the financial year 2010.



Done at Brussels, 21 February 2012.


For the Council


The President

M. VESTAGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

(2)  
            OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

(3)  
            OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 108.

(4)  
            OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 53.

(5)  
            OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 251.