do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-237/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, chemical salt, infringement of EU law, pollution from agricultural sources, prevention of pollution, water pollution








C_2012217EN.01001103.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/11





Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-237/12)
2012/C 217/24
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Simon and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by not guaranteeing correct and full implementation of all requirements laid down in Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) of, and Annexes II (A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5) and III (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2) to, that directive;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission criticises the defendant on the ground that it has failed correctly and fully to implement all of the requirements laid down in Article 5(4) of, and in Annexes II (A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5) and III (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2) to, Directive 91/676/EEC. The Commission has doubts as to whether the national legislation complies with the European Union law relating to:






—


the periods during which the land application of fertiliser is inappropriate, or indeed prohibited;










—


the capacity for storage of livestock manures;










—


the method of calculating the amount of nitrogen to be applied for purposes of balanced fertilisation;










—


the quantitative limitation of the land application of livestock manures;










—


the regulation of the land application of fertiliser to steeply sloping ground;










—


the regulation of the land application of fertiliser to water-saturated, flooded, frozen or snow-covered ground.






(1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 421/2012 of 16 May 2012 on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of May 2012 under the tariff quota for high-quality beef administered by Regulation (EC) No 620/2009
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beef, import (EU), import licence, tariff quota








L_2012130EN.01001801.xml










17.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 130/18








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 421/2012
of 16 May 2012
         
on the issue of import licences for applications submitted in the first seven days of May 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 May 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 May 2012 in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 16,215775 %.


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, 16 May 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-206/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2012209EN.01001101.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/11





Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
(Case T-206/12)
2012/C 209/18
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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 March 2012 in Case R 411/2011-1;










—


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 american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — application No 7 481 328

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’ and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ 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
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012140EN.01000101.xml










16.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 140/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 May 2012
2012/C 140/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2843




JPY


Japanese yen


102,65




DKK


Danish krone


7,4335




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80010




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0437




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2010




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6185




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,515




HUF


Hungarian forint


292,25




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6971




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3225




RON


Romanian leu


4,4425




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3210




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2836




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2855




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,9739




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6573




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6128




KRW


South Korean won


1 481,04




ZAR


South African rand


10,5182




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1156




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5350




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 897,19




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9531




PHP


Philippine peso


54,773




RUB


Russian rouble


39,0452




THB


Thai baht


40,237




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5539




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5635




INR


Indian rupee


69,0500






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-580/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Kindertraum — Earlier national word mark Kinder — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier trade mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012194EN.01001903.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/19





Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum)
(Case T-580/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Kindertraum - Earlier national word mark Kinder - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of the earlier trade mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 194/31
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Harald Wohlfahrt (Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Germany) (represented initially by N. Scholz Recht, then by G. Huβlein-Stich, latterly by M. Loschelder, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Pohlmann, then D. Walicka, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Harald Wohlfahrt to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011
Amendments to the rules of procedure of the EFTA Court — adopted by the Court on 16 May 2012
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA Court, judicial proceedings, rules of procedure








C_2013132EN.01001201.xml










9.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/12





Amendments to the rules of procedure of the EFTA Court
adopted by the Court on 16 May 2012
(Only the English text is authentic)
2013/C 132/07
THE EFTA COURT,
Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and Court of Justice, signed in Oporto on 2 May 1992, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof;
Having regard to Protocol 5 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, on the Statute of the Court, and in particular Article 43 thereof;
Whereas it is necessary for the Court, in the light of experience, to have a clear legal basis for the enactment of practice directions with a view to improving the conduct of the proceedings, in particular with regard to the lodging of written pleadings and the conduct of hearings before it,
ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING DECISION AMENDING ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE:
Article 1
The following text shall be inserted after Article 97a:

‘Article 97b
The Court may issue practice directions relating in particular to the preparation and conduct of the hearings before it and to the lodging of written statements of case or written observations.’

Article 2
1.   This Decision, which is authentic in English, shall be published in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union, and shall enter into force on the day following its publication.
2.   This Decision shall be officially translated by the Court into German, Icelandic and Norwegian.

Luxembourg, 16 May 2012.

Páll HREINSSON

Judge



Carl BAUDENBACHER

President



Per CHRISTIANSEN

Judge
2012/314/EU: Decision No 1/2012 of the Community/Switzerland Inland Transport Committee of 16 May 2012 concerning the granting of a rebate on the performance-based fee on heavy goods vehicle traffic for vehicles of emission class EURO VI
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: EC–Switzerland Inland Transport Committee
Subjects: Switzerland, axle tax, commercial vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, tax relief








L_2012158EN.01002401.xml










19.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 158/24








            DECISION No 1/2012 OF THE COMMUNITY/SWITZERLAND INLAND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
         
of 16 May 2012
         
concerning the granting of a rebate on the performance-based fee on heavy goods vehicle traffic for vehicles of emission class EURO VI
(2012/314/EU)


THE COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the carriage of goods and passengers by rail and road, and in particular Article 51(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 40 of the Agreement, Switzerland has since 1 January 2001 levied a non-discriminatory fee on vehicles for the costs to which they give rise (performance-based fee on heavy goods vehicle traffic).












(2)


In accordance with Article 44, the Contracting Parties seek to introduce ecological measures in order to reduce notably exhaust gas and particulate emissions from heavy goods vehicles.












(3)


In accordance with Article 7(5), each Contracting Party undertakes not to subject vehicles approved in the territory of the other Contracting Party to conditions that are more restrictive than those in force in its own territory,





HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:



Article 1
A rebate of 10 % of the fee applying to their category is temporarily granted to vehicles of emission class EURO VI.


Article 2
The rebate mentioned in Article 1 will be granted only to vehicles with an entry in the vehicle registration certificate or with an equivalent certificate from the national authorities confirming that the vehicle corresponds to emission class EURO VI. The certificate is to be carried in the motor vehicle.


Article 3
The competent Swiss authorities reserve the right to verify compliance with the relevant emission limit values on any EURO VI vehicle which benefits from a fee rebate.


Article 4
Switzerland reserves the right to review the situation concerning the rebate mentioned in Article 1 from 2014 onwards and then to reduce or end the rebate, as appropriate.


Article 5
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 July 2012.




Done at Berne, 16 May 2012.


The President

Peter FÜGLISTALER
            



The Head of the Delegation of the European Union

Fotis KARAMITSOS
Case F-61/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — AF v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Request for assistance — Psychological harassment and discriminatory treatment — Error of assessment)
Date: 2012-05-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damage, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2012227EN.01003502.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/35





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2012 — AF v Commission
(Case F-61/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Request for assistance - Psychological harassment and discriminatory treatment - Error of assessment)
2012/C 227/57
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AF (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the defendant’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance relating to psychological harassment of which he claims to have been a victim and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AF to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 63.