do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-535/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (GAZI Hellim) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GAZI Hellim — Prior collective Community word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01002002.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/20





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (GAZI Hellim)
(Case T-535/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GAZI Hellim - Prior collective Community word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 217/42
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented initally by: C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, and subsequently by: C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Garmo AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Special Report No 7/2012 ‘The reform of the common organisation of the market in wine: Progress to date’
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: agrarian reform, common organisation of markets, wine








C_2012167EN.01001701.xml










13.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/17





Special Report No 7/2012 ‘The reform of the common organisation of the market in wine: Progress to date’
2012/C 167/06
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 7/2012 ‘The reform of the common organisation of the market in wine: Progress to date’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case T-656/11 R II: Order of the General Court (the judge hearing the application for interim measures) of 13 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, rights of the defence








C_2012227EN.01002201.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/22





Order of the General Court (the judge hearing the application for interim measures) of 13 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council
(Case T-656/11 R II)
(Application for interim measures - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 227/36
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Dubai Office (Dubai); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Sharjah Office (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: H. Viaene, T. Ruys and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity designated as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-261/12: Action brought on 13 June 2012 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Serbia, award of contract, competition policy, invitation to tender








C_2012243EN.01002602.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/26





Action brought on 13 June 2012 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission
(Case T-261/12)
2012/C 243/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Repair the damages caused to the applicant by the unlawful decision of the EU Delegation to Serbia of 23 March 2012 to cancel the award of the contract ‘Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of Competition (CPC) in the Republic of Serbia’ (OJ 2011 S 147) which was awarded to the applicant, as leader of the consortium for the project above;










—


Order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the defendant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted unlawfully by accusing the applicant of having an unfair advantage in relation to the other tenderers, since this conflict of interest that the applicant is being accused of concerns a totally independent third company, i.e. European profiles SA and not the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its obligation to provide a clear and grounded decision of cancellation of the award, in violation of Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, in that it failed to justify the reason for which the applicant was given an unfair advantage in relation to the other tenderers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its right to be heard by failing to invite the applicant to express its opinion on what may be the matter constituting conflict of interest, in violation of article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its obligation to give the applicant the access to the documents which would prove the alleged illegal link and the unfair advantage to DIADIKASIA Consortium, according to Article 42 of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that those actions by the defendant constitute a serious violation of the principle of legal certainty and an error in law as well as of the Article 4 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, when it unexpectedly cancelled its decision to award the subject project to the applicant’s consortium on alleged grounds of ‘conflict of interest’.
Case T-542/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CIRCON — Prior Community word mark CIRCULON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Highly distinctive character — Goodwill — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Procedure before the Board of Appeal — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2012217EN.01002003.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/20





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON)
(Case T-542/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CIRCON - Prior Community word mark CIRCULON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Highly distinctive character - Goodwill - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Procedure before the Board of Appeal - Rights of the defence - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 217/43
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea, and subsequently by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: M. Fiedler, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd and XXXLutz Marken GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by XXXLutz Marken GmbH;










3.


Orders Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Case T-312/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — Byk-Cera (CERATIX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CERATIX — Earlier national word mark CERATOFIX — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01002201.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/22





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — Byk-Cera (CERATIX)
(Case T-312/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CERATIX - Earlier national word mark CERATOFIX - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 217/46
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Süd-Chemie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: Baron W. von der Osten-Sacken and A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Byk-Cera BV (Deventer, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Kroher and A. Hettenkofer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Süd-Chemie AG and Byk-Cera BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Süd-Chemie AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-366/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 Insula v Commission (Arbitration clause — Financing contracts for research and development projects — Ecres, El Hierro, Islands 2010, Opet I, Opet II, Opet Ola, Respire, Sustainable Communities and Virtual Campus contracts — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Counterclaim by the Commission)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, administrative expenditure, arbitration clause, damages, deduction at source, financing








C_2012217EN.01001701.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/17





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 Insula v Commission
(Case T-366/09) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Financing contracts for research and development projects - Ecres, El Hierro, Islands 2010, Opet I, Opet II, Opet Ola, Respire, Sustainable Communities and Virtual Campus contracts - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Counterclaim by the Commission)
2012/C 217/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, and subsequently by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and D. Calciu, Agents, and by L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

Re:

Application, on the basis of Article 238 EC, for a declaration, first, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 114 996,82 is unfounded and, second, that a claim of the Commission of EUR 253 617,08 is well founded in part, and that the Commission be ordered to pay the applicant damages of EUR 146 261,06, principally, and of EUR 573 273,42, in the alternative.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula);










2.


Orders Insula to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 114 996,82, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 16 August 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;










3.


Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 253 617,08, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 8 September 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;










4.


Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;










5.


Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6468 — ForFarmers/Hendrix)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, economic concentration, food production, merger control








C_2012167EN.01000102.xml










13.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6468 — ForFarmers/Hendrix)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 167/02
On 16 March 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6468. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Scheme of generalised tariff preferences ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (COM(2011)0241 – C7-0116/2011 – 2011/0117(COD))#P7_TC1-COD(2011)0117 Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 13 June 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No …/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: EU market, developing countries, development aid, generalised preferences, market access, sustainable development, tariff preference








CE2013332EN.01012702.xml










15.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 332/127





Wednesday 13 June 2012Scheme of generalised tariff preferences ***I
P7_TA(2012)0241
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (COM(2011)0241 – C7-0116/2011 – 2011/0117(COD))
2013/C 332 E/30
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0241),










—


having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0116/2011),










—


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










—


having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 6 June 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 International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0054/2012),










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.






Wednesday 13 June 2012P7_TC1-COD(2011)0117
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 13 June 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No …/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.)
Case F-63/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Macchia v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities — Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005 , on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff — Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, indemnification, work contract








C_2012227EN.01003602.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/36





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Macchia v Commission
(Case F-63/11) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Administration’s discretion - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005, on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff - Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)
2012/C 227/60
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Macchia (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rogrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the acting Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office, of 12 August 2010, rejecting the application to extend Mr Macchia’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;










2.


Rejects the application for the rest.






(1)  OJ C 226 of 30 July 2011, p. 32
2012/366/EU: Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, Liguria, Tuscany, aid to disaster victims, financial aid, flood, fund (EU)








L_2012178EN.01001301.xml










10.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 178/13








            DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
         
of 13 June 2012
         
on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
(2012/366/EU)


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.












(2)


The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.












(3)


Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.












(4)


Italy submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by flooding in Liguria and Tuscany,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 18 061 682 in commitment and payment appropriations.


Article 2
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Strasbourg, 13 June 2012.


For the European Parliament


The President

M. SCHULZ
            



For the Council


The President

N. WAMMEN
            





(1)  
            OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.