do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-244/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2012 — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat
Date: 2012-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, environmental impact, public works








C_2012235EN.01000701.xml










4.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2012 — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat
(Case C-244/12)
2012/C 235/13
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Salzburger Flughafen GmbH

Defendant: Umweltsenat

Party: Landesumweltanwalt von Salzburg

Further party: Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Questions referred







1.


Does Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, (2) preclude a national rule by which it is established that an environmental impact assessment for infrastructure works (not concerning the runway) at an airport, that is the construction of a terminal and the extension of the airport site to construct further facilities (in particular hangars, equipment buildings and parking areas), shall only be carried out if the annual number of aircraft movements is anticipated to increase by no less than 20 000?
In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:










2.


In the absence of relevant national provisions, does Directive 85/337 require and allow for the direct application of its provisions to assess (taking due account of the objectives thereby pursued and the criteria set out in Annex III thereto) the environmental impact of a project — specified in Question 1 — which is covered by Annex II?






(1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

(2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
Case T-214/12: Action brought on 21 May 2012 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)
Date: 2012-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012227EN.01002301.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/23





Action brought on 21 May 2012 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)
(Case T-214/12)
2012/C 227/39
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Indesit Company SpA (Fabriano, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ILVE-Industria Lavorazione Veneta Elettrodomestici SpA (Campodarsego, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2012 in Case R 2219/2010-1 and declare Community trade mark No 7 313 158, which will use the word ‘quadrio’ in special writing to mark refrigerators, legally capable of being registered





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Indesit Company SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘quadrio’ for goods in Class 11 — Application No 7 313 158

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ILVE-Industria Lavorazione Veneta Elettrodomestici SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘QUADRA’ for goods in Class 11

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009
2012/277/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 21 May 2012 amending Decision 2002/840/EC adopting the list of approved facilities in third countries for the irradiation of foods (notified under document C(2012) 3179)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-05-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Thailand, food safety, foodstuff, import (EU), ionising radiation, irradiation, research body








L_2012134EN.01002901.xml










24.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 134/29








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION
         
of 21 May 2012
         
amending Decision 2002/840/EC adopting the list of approved facilities in third countries for the irradiation of foods
(notified under document C(2012) 3179)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2012/277/EU)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


According to Directive 1999/2/EC, a foodstuff treated with ionising radiation may not be imported from a third country unless it has been treated in an irradiation facility approved by the European Union.












(2)


A list of approved facilities in third countries has been established by Commission Decision 2002/840/EC (2).












(3)


The Thai authorities have informed the Commission that the name of one of the approved irradiation facilities located in Thailand has changed.












(4)


Decision 2002/840/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Annex to Decision 2002/840/EC is amended in accordance with the text in the Annex to this Decision.


Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 21 May 2012.


For the Commission

John DALLI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 66, 13.3.1999, p. 16.

(2)  
            OJ L 287, 25.10.2002, p. 40.




ANNEX
In the Annex to Decision 2002/840/EC,


                     ‘
                     Reference No: EU-AIF 08-2006






Isotron (Thailand) Ltd




Bangpakong Industrial Park (Amata Nakorn)




700/465 Moo 7, Tambon Donhuaroh




Amphur Muang




Chonburi 20000




Thailand




Tel. (66) (0) 38 458431 to 4




Fax (66) (0) 38 458435’
               





is replaced by:


                     ‘
                     Reference No: EU-AIF 08-2006






Synergy Health (Thailand) Ltd




700/465 Amata Nakorn Industrial




Moo 7, Tambon Donhuaroh




Amphur Muang




Chonburi 20000




Thailand




Tel. (66) (0) 38 458431 to 3 and (66) (0) 38 450092 to 3




Fax (66) (0) 38 458435 and (66) (0) 38 717146’
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson (Case E-3/12)
Date: 2012-05-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: employment service, residence, unemployment insurance








C_2012324EN.01001201.xml










25.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 324/12





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson
(Case E-3/12)
2012/C 324/10
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 21 May 2012 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 May 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson, on the following question:
When national legislation requires, inter alia, actual stay in the State in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits, is it then compatible with Article 71(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to require continued stay in the competent State (the State of last employment) in order to be granted such benefits from this State, also in the case of a wholly unemployed person who, during his/her last employment, has stayed there as a ‘non-genuine’ frontier worker?
Is it relevant to the answer to this question whether:






1.


the unemployed person lives in a country near the competent State (the State of last employment), so that it is possible in practice for that person to appear at the employment office in that State even if he/she does not stay there?










2.


the unemployed person, after having returned to the State of residence, registers as a job seeker with the employment service and also applies for unemployment benefits in that State?