do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Issuance of euro coins ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the issuance of euro coins (COM(2011)0295 – C7-0140/2011 – 2011/0131(COD))#P7_TC1-COD(2011)0131 Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 22 May 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No …/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the issuance of euro coins
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: commemoration, euro, issuing of currency, money, technical specification








CE2013264EN.01010201.xml










13.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 264/102





Tuesday 22 May 2012Issuance of euro coins ***I
P7_TA(2012)0210
European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the issuance of euro coins (COM(2011)0295 – C7-0140/2011 – 2011/0131(COD))
2013/C 264 E/20
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0295),










—


having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 133 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0140/2011),










—


having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank of 23 August 2011 (1),










—


having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 25 April 2012 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0439/2011),










1.


Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;










2.


Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;










3.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  OJ C 273, 16.9.2011, p. 2.


Tuesday 22 May 2012P7_TC1-COD(2011)0131
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 22 May 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No …/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the issuance of euro coins

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 651/2012.)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 428/2012 of 22 May 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United States, grape, labelling, vinification, wine








L_2012132EN.01001001.xml










23.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 132/10








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 428/2012
of 22 May 2012
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products


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), and in particular Article 121, first paragraph, point (m), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (2), the United States has asked that the name of the country be entered in Part B of Annex XV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (3) in the column indicating the countries that may use the name of one of the wine grape varieties that may appear on the labelling of wines in accordance with Article 62(4) of the Regulation. Following checks that the conditions laid down in Article 62(1)(b) and Article 62(4) of the Regulation are satisfied, the United States should be entered in the relevant column in that Annex against the name of the wine grape variety to which the request refers.












(2)


Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In Part B of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, row 58 is replaced by the following:








‘58


Vermentino di Gallura (IT)
Vermentino di Sardegna (IT)



Vermentino




Italy, Australia, United States of America’






Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of 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, 22 May 2012.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 87, 24.3.2006, p. 2.

(3)  
            OJ L 193, 24.7.2009, p. 60.
Case T-345/10: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Portugal v Commission (EAGGF — Guidance Section — Reduction of financial assistance — Measures to support investments in agricultural holdings — Effectiveness of controls)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF, aid to agriculture, financial aid








C_2012194EN.01001902.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/19





Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-345/10) (1)

(EAGGF - Guidance Section - Reduction of financial assistance - Measures to support investments in agricultural holdings - Effectiveness of controls)
2012/C 194/30
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and J. Saraiva de Almeida, agents, and by M. Figueiredo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and G. von Rintelen, agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 of 29 June 2010 concerning the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, allocated to Operational Programme No CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal — National Objective 1 programme) for the measure ‘Investments in agricultural holdings’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010
Case T-570/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of the head of a wolf) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machine-tool industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001401.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/14





Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of the head of a wolf)
(Case T-570/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 200/27
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Atkins, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing LLP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Environmental Manufacturing LLP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
Case F-56/12: Action brought on 22 May 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Germany, retirement conditions, servant (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2012243EN.01003401.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/34





Action brought on 22 May 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-56/12)
2012/C 243/58
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: EurAA Anwälte für Arbeitnehmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application (i) for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to pay any pension contributions in respect of the applicant to the German pension insurance scheme or to the European Union pension scheme after the end of his contract for the period of his unemployment, and (ii) for the applicant to be included in the European Union pension scheme or for his pension rights to be transferred to the German pension insurance scheme.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of the European Commission’s Directorate-General of 24 February 2012 (No R/813/11);










—


order the defendant to include the applicant in the pension scheme for officials and other servants of the European Community for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 August 2009 and to pay the appropriate contributions;










—


in the alternative, order the defendant to apply to the German pension insurance scheme for retroactive insurance in respect of the applicant for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 August 2009 and to pay statutory pension contributions for the applicant for German pension insurance;










—


in the alternative, declare that the defendant is obliged, from the date on which the applicant’s pension becomes payable, to pay to the applicant compensation for the amount by which the applicant’s pension is reduced in relation to the pension which he would receive if pension contributions at the statutory rate had been paid towards the State pension for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 August 2009.
Case C-251/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA) v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, financial solvency, judicial proceedings








C_2012200EN.01001001.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA) v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg
(Case C-251/12)
2012/C 200/18
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Christian van Buggenhout and Ilse van de Mierop (lawyers acting as administrators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA)

Defendant: Banque Internationale à Luxembourg

Questions referred







1.


How should the words ‘obligation … for the benefit of a debtor’ in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted?










2.


Must those words be interpreted as including a payment made to a creditor of the insolvent debtor at the latter’s request, in the case where the party which carried out that payment obligation on behalf and for the benefit of the insolvent debtor did so while unaware of the existence of insolvency proceedings which had been opened against the debtor in another Member State?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).
Case T-344/08: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Administrative file relating to cartel proceedings — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process — Obligation of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the request for access)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative procedure, cartel, energy industry








C_2012194EN.01001801.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/18





Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission
(Case T-344/08) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Administrative file relating to cartel proceedings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process - Obligation of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the request for access)
2012/C 194/27
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: A. Bach and A. Hahn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Costa de Oliveira, A. Antoniadis and O. Weber and subsequently by A. Bouquet, P. Costa de Oliveira and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska, S. Johannesson and A. Falk, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Siemens AG (Berlin and Munich, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker, C. Steinle and M. Holm-Hadulla, lawyers); and ABB Ltd (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented: initially by J. Lawrence, Solicitor, and E. Whiteford, Barrister, and subsequently by J. Lawrence and D. Howe, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden, ABB Ltd and Siemens AG to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.
Case C-249/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Corina-Hrisi Tulică v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, real property, sale








C_2012243EN.01000701.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Corina-Hrisi Tulică v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor
(Case C-249/12)
2012/C 243/11
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Corina-Hrisi Tulică

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

Question referred

If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:






(a)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or










(b)


the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?






(1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-585/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PENTEO — Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001402.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/14





Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)
(Case T-585/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PENTEO - Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 200/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Atos Worldline SA (Brussels, Belgium)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 774/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Atos Worldline SA and Aitic Penteo, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Aitic Penteo, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
Case T-179/11: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SEVEN SUMMITS — Earlier Community figurative mark Seven — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001601.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/16





Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS)
(Case T-179/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SEVEN SUMMITS - Earlier Community figurative mark Seven - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 200/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: S. Fürst, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 364/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to pay its own costs and to bear those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Seven SpA.






(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
Case F-109/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — AU v European Commission (Civil Service — Contractual agents — Pensions — Severance grant)
Date: 2012-05-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: action for annulment, retirement conditions, servant (EU), severance pay








C_2012194EN.01002801.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/28





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — AU v European Commission
(Case F-109/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Contractual agents - Pensions - Severance grant)
2012/C 194/46
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: AU (represented by: R. Oehmen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to pay the applicant a severance grant

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AU to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 43.