do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1235/2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the wet grip grading of tyres, the measurement of rolling resistance and the verification procedure  Text with EEA relevance (Publication of the reference laboratories for the purpose of the alignment procedure concerning the measurement of rolling resistance of tyres for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2011)
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, energy consumption, labelling, motor fuel, pneumatic tyre, resistance of materials








C_2012086EN.01000301.xml










23.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/3





Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1235/2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the wet grip grading of tyres, the measurement of rolling resistance and the verification procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(Publication of the reference laboratories for the purpose of the alignment procedure concerning the measurement of rolling resistance of tyres for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2011)
2012/C 86/03
The following laboratories are parts of a network of laboratories which comply with the requirements set in point 3 of Annex IVa of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2011 (2). They have to be published as ‘Reference laboratory’ in the Official Journal of the European Union as indicated in point 1(1) of Annex IVa of the Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1235/2011.






Reference laboratory


Name/Address




Apollo Vredestein







Vredestein Banden BV




Ir. E.L.C. Schiffstraat 370




7547 RD Enschede




NEDERLAND








Bridgestone







Bridgestone Technical Center Europe SpA




Via del Fosso del Salceto 13/15




00128 Roma RM




ITALIA








Continental







Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH




Jaedekamp 30




30419 Hannover




DEUTSCHLAND








Goodyear







Goodyear Innovation Center Luxembourg




Avenue Gordon Smith




7750 Colmar-Berg




LUXEMBOURG








IDIADA







IDIADA Automotive Technology, SA




Pol Ind L'Albornar




43710 Santa Oliva




ESPAÑA








Michelin







CERL Michelin




Zone Industrielle de Ladoux




63040 Clermont-Ferrand




FRANCE








Pirelli







Pirelli Tyre SpA




Viale Sarca 222




20126 Milano MI




ITALIA








TÜV







TÜV SÜD Automotive GmbH




Daimlerstrasse 15




85748 Garching/München




DEUTSCHLAND








UTAC







L'Union Technique de l’Automobile du motocycle et du Cycle (UTAC)




Autodrome de Linas-Montlhéry




avenue Georges Boillot




91310 Montlhéry Cedex




FRANCE










(1)  OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p. 46.

(2)  OJ L 317, 30.11.2011, p. 17.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012086EN.01000201.xml










23.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 March 2012
2012/C 86/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3167




JPY


Japanese yen


109,40




DKK


Danish krone


7,4359




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83330




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9265




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2055




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6240




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,736




HUF


Hungarian forint


293,50




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6968




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1645




RON


Romanian leu


4,3730




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3890




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2696




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3151




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2252




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6294




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6680




KRW


South Korean won


1 491,16




ZAR


South African rand


10,1660




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3039




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5283




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 073,29




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0704




PHP


Philippine peso


56,740




RUB


Russian rouble


38,7580




THB


Thai baht


40,607




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4001




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8642




INR


Indian rupee


67,4480






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-341/11: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Canary Islands, Spain, access to information, environmental protection, harbour installation








C_2012151EN.01002902.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/29





Order of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción v Commission
(Case T-341/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 151/48
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Doreste Hernández, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: M. Muñoz Pérez and J.M. Rodriguez Cârcamo, lawyers, thereafter by S. Centeno Huerta, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning the approval of the project for the construction of a port in Granadilla (Tenerife, Spain) supplied by the Spanish authorities to the Commission pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by Ecologistas en Acción-CODA.










3.


The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
Council Decision 2012/344/CFSP of 23 March 2012 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Albania in European Union crisis management operations
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Albania, agreement (EU), international dispute, ratification of an agreement, settlement of disputes, signature of an agreement








L_2012169EN.01000101.xml










29.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 169/1








            COUNCIL DECISION 2012/344/CFSP
of 23 March 2012
         
on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Albania in European Union crisis management operations


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR),

Whereas:







(1)


Conditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.












(2)


Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Albania in European Union crisis management operations (‘the Agreement’).












(3)


The Agreement should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Albania in the European Union crisis management operations (‘the Agreement’) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.


Article 3
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16(1) of the Agreement.


Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 23 March 2012.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 23 March 2012 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banque de France (ECB/2012/5)
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: France, accountant, auditing, central bank








C_2012093EN.01000101.xml










30.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/1





RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 23 March 2012
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banque de France
(ECB/2012/5)
2012/C 93/01
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


Pursuant to Article L.142-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code, the General Council of the Banque de France appoints two statutory auditors to audit the accounts of the Banque de France. Pursuant to Article L.823-1 of the Commercial Code, one or more deputy auditors are appointed to replace the incumbent auditors in the event of their refusal, impediment, resignation or death.










(3)


The mandate of the Banque de France’s external auditors will end following the audit for the financial year 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2012.










(4)


The Banque de France has selected Deloitte & Associés and KPMG SA as its external auditors and B.E.A.S. and KPMG Audit FS I SAS as their deputy auditors for the financial years 2012 to 2017,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:






1.


It is recommended that Deloitte & Associés and KPMG SA should be appointed jointly as the external auditors of the Banque de France for the financial years 2012 to 2017.










2.


It is recommended that B.E.A.S. should be appointed as deputy auditors to Deloitte & Associés and KPMG Audit FS I SAS as deputy auditors to KPMG SA for the financial years 2012 to 2017.





Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 March 2012.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
Case T-157/10: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Barilla v OHIM — Brauerei Schlösser (ALIXIR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark ALIXIR — Earlier national word mark Elixeer — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012133EN.01002303.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/23





Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Barilla v OHIM — Brauerei Schlösser (ALIXIR)
(Case T-157/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark ALIXIR - Earlier national word mark Elixeer - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 133/45
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G. Sironi and A. Colmano, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brauerei Schlösser GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2010 (case R 820/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Schlösser GmbH and Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
Case T-132/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, means of communication, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2012165EN.01002402.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/24





Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
(Case T-132/12)
2012/C 165/42
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojini Nagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2012 in case R 2308/2010-1, in which the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 6 and 7 was dismissed; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court of the European Union.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been sought: The word mark ‘LAMBRETTA’, for goods in classes 6, 7 and 28 — Community trade mark registration No 1618982

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for revocation: The party grounded its request pursuant to Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the CTM registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: It is submitted that the Board of Appeal erred in three respects in its assessment of the evidence under Article 51(1)(c). Had the Board of Appeal correctly applied the authorities in Case T-415/09 Vallis v New Yorker and/or La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA (Case C-259/02) and/or reviewed the evidence it would have held that there was genuine use of goods in classes 6 and 7 with the consent of SIL.
Case T-131/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012165EN.01002401.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/24





Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)
(Case T-131/12)
2012/C 165/41
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Orly International, Inc (Van Nuys, USA)

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 9 January 2012 in Case R 2396/2010-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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: Word mark ‘SPARITUAL’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark applied for No 3631884

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of the word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in the assessment of the reputation of the word mark ‘SPA’ in Class 32 and infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in the assessment of the likelihood that unfair advantage would be taken of the repute of the mark ‘SPA’.
Case C-144/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 March 2012 — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, judicial proceedings, jurisdiction








C_2012184EN.01000301.xml










23.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 March 2012 — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo
(Case C-144/12)
2012/C 184/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (Regulation No 1896/2006) to be interpreted as meaning that Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (2) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Regulation No 44/2001), which confers jurisdiction on a court before which a defendant enters an appearance, must also be applied in the European order for payment procedure?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Is Article 17 of Regulation No 1896/2006 in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the lodging of a statement of opposition to a European order for payment itself constitutes the entry of an appearance, provided that that statement does not contest the jurisdiction of the court of origin?










3.


If question 2 is answered in the negative:
Is Article 17 of Regulation No 1896/2006 in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the lodging of a statement of opposition confers jurisdiction by virtue of the entry of an appearance at most where that statement itself presents arguments on the substance of the case but does not contest the jurisdiction?






(1)  OJ L 399, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Case C-143/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2012-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative check, administrative supervision, air quality








C_2012165EN.01001202.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/12





Action brought on 23 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-143/12)
2012/C 165/20
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to issue permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8, to reconsider and, if appropriate, to update the existing permits and to ensure that all the existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and 9b) and 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) (1);










—


order French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive, Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007.
On 3 November 2009, the Commission sent a letter before action, taking the view that the defendant permitted the operation of a large number of existing installations (1647 installations) which did not have a permit complying with the requirements of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive. At the time the reasoned opinion was sent, 784 existing installations were still without a permit in accordance with Article 5(1) of the directive.
Although the situation has since improved, at the time the present application was lodged, four installations continue to be operated in the French Republic without a permit in accordance with the directive.
Therefore, the Commission takes the view that the French Republic has not yet put an end to the infringement of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.