do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-381/12: Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM
Date: 2012-08-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sugar product, trade-mark law








C_2012343EN.01001701.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/17





Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM
(Case T-381/12)
2012/C 343/29
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Ana Borrajo Canelo (Madrid, Spain), Carlos Borrajo Canelo (Madrid), Luis Borrajo Canelo (Madrid) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technoazúcar (Havana, Cuba)

Form of order sought







—


Uphold the action and declare incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 May 2012 in Case R 2265/2010-2, rejecting the action brought by the applicants for revocation against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 24 September 2010, rejecting the application for revocation of Community trade mark No 4 602 454 PALMA MULATA for goods in Class 33, for ‘rum’;










—


Order the defendant and, as appropriate, the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Nominative mark PALMA MULATA for goods in Class 33 — registered Community trade mark No 4 602 454

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Technoazúcar

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicants

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for revocation

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-394/12: Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council
Date: 2012-08-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: information technology profession, invitation to tender, maintenance, professional qualifications








C_2012331EN.01003001.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/30






Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council
(Case T-394/12)
(2012/C 331/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders UCA-218-07 for the provision of technical maintenance — help desk and on-site intervention services for the PC’s printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ/S 2008/S 91-122796), communicated afresh to the applicant by registered letter dated 18 June 2012, following the annulment of the previous award decision dated 1 December 2008 by the General Court in its judgment in case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council;










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account if the tendering procedure in question; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 contested decision violated the tender specification since the use of the movers to execute technical assistance tasks as envisaged in the winning tender is contrary to such specifications;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by multiple manifest errors of assessment especially concerning the certification of the winning tenderer, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks, the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the evaluation committee mixed selection and award criteria and phases of the tendering procedure.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that there exist various inconsistencies and inaccurate information in the call for tenders.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not comply with the provision of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1), especially with regard to the verification of selection criteria.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-08-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012259EN.01000201.xml










28.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 August 2012
2012/C 259/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2530




JPY


Japanese yen


98,71




DKK


Danish krone


7,4483




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79244




SEK


Swedish krona


8,2397




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2010




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,2950




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,845




HUF


Hungarian forint


277,65




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6963




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0780




RON


Romanian leu


4,4680




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2555




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2056




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2403




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,7184




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5455




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5673




KRW


South Korean won


1 422,50




ZAR


South African rand


10,5152




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9666




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4850




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 929,82




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,8968




PHP


Philippine peso


52,917




RUB


Russian rouble


39,8010




THB


Thai baht


39,156




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5395




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5109




INR


Indian rupee


69,7700






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2012-08-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Spain, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, ship's flag








C_2012259EN.01000301.xml










28.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/3





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2012/C 259/03
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


6.8.2012




Duration


6.8.2012-31.12.2012




Member State


Spain




Stock or Group of stocks


BSF/8910-




Species


Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo)





Zone


EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


FS19DSS






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6679 — STEAG/Fronterasol/OHL Industrial/Arenales Solar)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-08-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, energy industry, energy production, energy supply, merger control








C_2012259EN.01000101.xml










28.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6679 — STEAG/Fronterasol/OHL Industrial/Arenales Solar)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 259/01
On 22 August 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 32012M6679. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-399/12: Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Council of the European Union
Date: 2012-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, international organisation, legal basis, vineyard, vote, wine








C_2012343EN.01000901.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/9





Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Council of the European Union
(Case C-399/12)
2012/C 343/11
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (represented by: N. Graf Vitzthum and T. Henze, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Council decision of 18 June 2012; (1)











—


Order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) challenges the Council decision of 18 June 2012‘establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)’.
According to the Federal Government, Article 218(9) TFEU was the incorrect legal basis for the adoption of the decision. Article 218(9) TFEU concerns in the first instance only the adoption of the positions of the Union in bodies, set up by international agreements, of which the Union is a member. Article 218(9) TFEU cannot however be applied in relation to the representation of the Member States in bodies of international organisations in which only the Member States participate by virtue of separate international treaties. Second, Article 218(9) TFEU covers only ‘acts having legal effects’, meaning acts binding under international law. OIV resolutions are however not acts in that sense.
Moreover no other legal basis for the adoption of the Council decision is apparent.


(1)  Council Document No 11436 ‘establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)’.