do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-105/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Davids v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary agents — Temporary agent occupying a permanent post — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Discretion of the administration — Article 8 of the CEOS — Article 4 of the Decision of the Director General of OLAF of 30 June 2005 on a new policy for the engagement and use of OLAF's temporary agents — Maximum duration of temporary staff contracts — Abuse of rights)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, indemnification, servant (EU), work contract








C_2012227EN.01003701.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/37





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Davids v Commission
(Case F-105/11) (1)

(Civil Service - Temporary agents - Temporary agent occupying a permanent post - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Discretion of the administration - Article 8 of the CEOS - Article 4 of the Decision of the Director General of OLAF of 30 June 2005 on a new policy for the engagement and use of OLAF's temporary agents - Maximum duration of temporary staff contracts - Abuse of rights)
2012/C 227/61
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Hans Davids (Doorn, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.12, p. 26.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6595 — AXA/BNP Paribas/Immeuble Cergy-Pontoise) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, financial services, merger control, real property








C_2012167EN.01001801.xml










13.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6595 — AXA/BNP Paribas/Immeuble Cergy-Pontoise)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 167/07






1.


On 5 June 2012, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which AXA France Vie SA (France) and BNP Paribas (France), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect joint control of commercial premises in Cergy-Pontoise (France), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AXA France Vie SA: The AXA group is active in the field of financial protection services,










—


BNP Paribas: BNP Paribas is a bank with a presence in 80 countries and active in three major areas of activity — retail banking, corporate and investment banking and investment solutions,










—


The premises are located in the department of Val d'Oise, in the communes of Eragny-sur-Oise and Saint-Ouen l'Aumône (France), which lie within the urban area of Cergy-Pontoise. The premises currently operate under the name Boulanger.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6595 — AXA/BNP Paribas/Immeuble Cergy-Pontoise, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
EU trade negotiations with Japan European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2012 on EU trade negotiations with Japan (2012/2651(RSP))
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Japan, economic integration, free-trade agreement, trade agreement (EU)








CE2013332EN.01004401.xml










15.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 332/44





Wednesday 13 June 2012EU trade negotiations with Japan
P7_TA(2012)0246
European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2012 on EU trade negotiations with Japan (2012/2651(RSP))
2013/C 332 E/06

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Article 3(1)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),










—


having regard to Article 218(2) and (10) TFEU,










—


having regard to the report by Copenhagen Economics entitled ‘Assessment of barriers to trade and investment between the EU and Japan’, published on 30 November 2009,










—


having regard to the joint statement adopted at the 19th EU-Japan Summit held in Tokyo on 28 April 2010,










—


having regard to the results of the Commission’s public consultation on EU-Japan trade relations, published on 21 February 2011,










—


having regard to the European Council conclusions of 24 and 25 March 2011,










—


having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on EU-Japan trade relations (1),










—


having regard to the joint statement adopted at the 20th EU-Japan Summit held in Brussels on 28 May 2011,










—


having regard to Rules 90(2) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas both the Council and the Commission have noted that Japan’s capacity to remove regulatory barriers to trade is a precondition for launching negotiations on the EU-Japan trade agreement, thus fostering closer economic integration between the two strategic trading partners;










B.


whereas at the 20th EU-Japan Summit held on 28 May 2011 in Brussels, the summit leaders decided that the two sides would start discussions with a view to defining the scope and level of ambition of such negotiations;










C.


whereas a Scoping Group has been set up to assess the shared understanding on the scope and level of ambition of the potential trade negotiations between Japan and the EU;










1.


Asks the Council not to authorise the opening of trade negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate, on the basis of a report by the committee responsible;










2.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission for information.






(1)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0225.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6569 — Lecta/Polyedra)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pulp and paper industry








C_2012167EN.01000101.xml










13.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6569 — Lecta/Polyedra)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 167/01
On 6 June 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 32012M6569. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-342/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Paul Hartmann AG v OHIM — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MESILETTE — Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01001901.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/19





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Paul Hartmann AG v OHIM — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
(Case T-342/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MESILETTE - Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 217/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, 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: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Mölnlycke Health Care AB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Case F-63/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — BL v European Commission (Civil Service — Former official — Social security — Accident — Closure of the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Temporal application of the scale annexed to the new version of the rules concerning insurance against accidents and occupational diseases — Length of the procedure)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: disability insurance, indemnification








C_2012227EN.01003503.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/35





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — BL v European Commission
(Case F-63/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Former official - Social security - Accident - Closure of the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Temporal application of the scale annexed to the new version of the rules concerning insurance against accidents and occupational diseases - Length of the procedure)
2012/C 227/58
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application to annul the Commission’s decision to close the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations following the applicant’s accident on 13 August 2001 by granting the applicant a rate of permanent invalidity of 6 % and an order that the defendant pay the applicant an amount in respect of damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 28 October 2009 to close the opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union following the accident to BL on 13 August 2001;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay BL the sum of EUR 2 500;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by BL.






(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010, p. 29.
Case T-110/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission (Arbitration clause — Financing contract for research and development projects — El Hierro contract — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of the declared expenses — Reimbursement of sums advanced — 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.01001802.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/18





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission
(Case T-110/10) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Financing contract for research and development projects - El Hierro contract - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of the declared expenses - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Counterclaim by the Commission)
2012/C 217/37
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, submitted on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration, first, that the Commission’s request for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, second, that the Commission be ordered to issue a ‘credit note’ in the amount of EUR 84 120.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 84 120, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,5 % per annum, from 26 January 2010 until full payment of that principal sum;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the Commission’s counterclaim;










4.


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






(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
Case F-41/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Mocová v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Discretion — 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, servant (EU), work contract








C_2012227EN.01003601.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 — Mocová v Commission
(Case F-41/11) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Discretion - 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 227/59
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Dana Mocová (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A.. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Director General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s application to extend her contract as a member of the temporary staff for the purposes of Article 2(1) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 282 of 24/09/11, p. 51.
Case T-519/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Seikoh Giken v OHIM — Seiko Holdings (SG SEIKOH GIKEN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration — Application for territorial extension of the protection — Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN — Earlier Community word mark SEIKO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01001902.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/19





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Seikoh Giken v OHIM — Seiko Holdings (SG SEIKOH GIKEN)
(Case T-519/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration - Application for territorial extension of the protection - Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN - Earlier Community word mark SEIKO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 217/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken (Matsudo-shi Chiba, Japan) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Fish, R. Miller, Solicitors and A. Bryson, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 August 2010 (Case R 1553/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha and Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Case T-277/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark iHotel — Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01002102.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/21





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)
(Case T-277/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark iHotel - Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 217/45
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch and D. Hötte, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Promotora Imperial SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2011 (Case R 832/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Promotora Imperial SA and Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-534/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark HELLIM — Earlier Community collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01002001.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 (HELLIM)
(Case T-534/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark HELLIM - Earlier Community collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 217/41
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented initially 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 794/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.