do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-465/09: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Jurašinović v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to reports of European Union observers present in Croatia from 1 to 31 August 1995 — Refusal to grant access — Risk of undermining the protection of international relations — Previous disclosure)
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Croatia, access to EU information, international relations, observer








C_2012355EN.01002301.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/23





Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Jurašinović v Council
(Case T-465/09) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to reports of European Union observers present in Croatia from 1 to 31 August 1995 - Refusal to grant access - Risk of undermining the protection of international relations - Previous disclosure)
2012/C 355/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Jarry and N. Amara-Lebret, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially C. Fekete and K. Zieleśkiewicz, subsequently C. Fekete and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

By way of principal claim, annulment of the decision of 22 September 2009 by which the applicant was granted partial access to reports of European Union observers present in the Knin zone of Croatia on from 1 August to 31 August 1995

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ivan Jurašinović to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
Case T-25/12: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pump, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012366EN.01004001.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/40





Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)
(Case T-25/12) (1)

2012/C 366/81
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6638 — ABN Amro/Rabobank/Landsbanki/Heiploeg)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, crustacean, economic concentration, fishing industry, merger control








C_2012297EN.01000201.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6638 — ABN Amro/Rabobank/Landsbanki/Heiploeg)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 297/02
On 23 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 32012M6638. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-443/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 3 October 2012 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, pharmaceutical product








C_2012389EN.01000501.xml










15.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 3 October 2012 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi
(Case C-443/12)
2012/C 389/07
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

Defendant: Sanofi

Third party: Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC

Questions referred







1.


What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1) (‘the Regulation’)?










2.


In a situation in which multiple products are protected by a basic patent in force, does the Regulation, and in particular Article 3(c), preclude the proprietor of the patent being issued a certificate for each of the products protected?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
OJ L 152, p. 1
Case C-442/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Jan Sneller v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance contract, lawyer, right to justice








C_2013009EN.01003001.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 October 2012 — Jan Sneller v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV
(Case C-442/12)
2013/C 9/49
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jan Sneller

Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344/EEC (1) allow a legal expenses insurer which stipulates in its policies that legal assistance in inquiries or proceedings will in principle be provided by employees of the insurer also to stipulate that the costs of legal assistance provided by a lawyer or legal representative chosen freely by the insured person will be covered only if the insurer takes the view that the handling of the case must be subcontracted to an external legal representative?










2.


Will the answer to Question 1 differ depending on whether or not legal assistance is compulsory in the inquiry or proceedings concerned?






(1)  Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77).
Case T-63/10: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Jurašinović v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia during proceedings — Refusal to grant access — Risk of undermining the protection of international relations — Risk of undermining the protection of judicial proceedings and legal advice)
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: International Criminal Tribunal, Yugoslavia, access to EU information, international relations, judicial proceedings








C_2012355EN.01002303.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/23





Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Jurašinović v Council
(Case T-63/10) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia during proceedings - Refusal to grant access - Risk of undermining the protection of international relations - Risk of undermining the protection of judicial proceedings and legal advice)
2012/C 355/49
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: N. Amara-Lebret, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially C. Fekete and K. Zieleśkiewicz, subsequently C. Fekete and J. Herrmann)

Re:

By way of principal claim, annulment of the Council’s decision of 7 December 2009 refusing it access to the Council’s decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of the documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the proceedings relating to Mr Ante Gotovina and all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions and that Tribunal, including any annexes, and particularly the initial requests for documents from both that Tribunal and Mr Gotovina’s lawyers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Council’s decision of 7 December 2009 refusing Mr Ivan Jurašinović access to the Council’s decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of the documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the proceedings relating to Mr Ante Gotovina and all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions and that Tribunal, including any annexes, and particularly the initial requests for documents from both that Tribunal and Mr Gotovina’s lawyers, in so far as he was refused access to correspondence between the Council and that Tribunal, and to documents other than the reports drawn up by the European Community’s surveillance mission, annexed to that correspondence;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: data protection, economic concentration, electronic commerce, merger control, software








C_2012297EN.01000801.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 297/08






1.


On 14 September 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings ARM Limited (‘ARM’, UK), Giesecke & Devrient GmbH (‘G&D’, Germany) and Gemalto NV (‘Gemalto’, Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Newincco 1150 Limited (‘Newincco’, UK) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture. On 15 June 2012, the Commission received a notification of the same concentration. However, on 3 July 2012, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


ARM is a semiconductor intellectual property supplier. ARM creates and provides intellectual property solutions for microprocessors, cache and system on chip designs, application specific standard products, related software, and development tools,










—


G&D is active in security solutions for the production and processing of banknotes, and provides smart cards and other products and services for telecommunications, cashless payment, mobile business applications, public transport, Internet and network security,










—


Gemalto is active in the production of digital security solutions in various fields, including mobile communications, machine-to-machine, and secure transactions,










—


Newincco will develop and sell digital security solutions, consisting in ‘Trusted Execution Environments’, to ensure that sensitive data on consumer electronic devices is stored, processed and protected in a trusted environment.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV, 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’).
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Lombardy, State aid, aid to agriculture, control of State aid








C_2012297EN.01000101.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)
2012/C 297/01







Date of adoption of the decision


17.8.2012




Reference number of State Aid


SA.34624 (12/N)




Member State


Italy




Region


Lombardia


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Progetto speciale agricoltura — Aiuti a favore delle aziende agricole che rientrano nelle aree protette regionali — l.r. 30 novembre 1983, n. 86




Legal basis








—


Bozza di delibera «Progetto speciale agricoltura — aiuti a favore delle aziende agricole che rientrano nelle aree regionali protette — legge regionale 30 novembre 1983, n. 86 “Piano generale delle aree protette regionali”»,










—


Legge regionale 30 novembre 1983, n. 86 «Piano generale delle aree regionali protette. Norme per l’istituzione e la gestione delle riserve, dei parchi e dei monumenti naturali nonché delle aree di particolare rilevanza naturale ed ambientale»








Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Environmental protection, Technical support (AGRI)




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget








 


Overall budget: EUR 4 million










 


Annual budget: EUR 1 million








Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


Until 31.12.2017




Economic sectors


Agriculture, forestry and fishing




Name and address of the granting authority







Regione Lombardia




Piazza Città di Lombardia 1




20124 Milano MI




ITALIA








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6732 — Triton/European Directories) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control








C_2012297EN.01000601.xml










3.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6732 — Triton/European Directories)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 297/06






1.


On 25 September 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Triton Managers III Limited and TFF III Limited in their capacities, directly or indirectly, as general partners of Triton funds (‘Triton’, Jersey) intend to acquire sole control of European Directories (DH7) BV (‘European Directories’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Triton: a private equity investment firm that provides management advice and manages investments in European-based businesses in different market sectors,










—


for European Directories: a pan-European local search and lead generation group which is active on the telephone directories markets and related markets as well as on online and mobile search markets.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6732 — Triton/European Directories, 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’).
Case T-584/10: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 –Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO — Earlier national and international word marks MATADOR — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012355EN.01002601.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/26





Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 –Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO)
(Case T-584/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO - Earlier national and international word marks MATADOR - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 355/55
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mustafa Yilmaz (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented: initially by F. Kuschmirek, and subsequently by F. Stangl, lawyers)

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: Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV (Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, Mexico) (represented by: S. Salvetti, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 October 2010 (Case R 1162/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Mustafa Yilmaz and Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Holds that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 October 2010 (Case R 1162/2009-2) in so far as it accepted registration of the mark applied for in respect of ‘alcoholic beverages’;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Mustafa Yilmaz to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM and by Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV.






(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
Case C-446/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 October 2012 — W.P. Willems; other party: Burgemeester van Nuth
Date: 2012-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, passport, safety standard








C_2013026EN.01001601.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 October 2012 — W.P. Willems; other party: Burgemeester van Nuth
(Case C-446/12)
2013/C 26/28
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: W.P. Willems

Other party: Burgemeester van Nuth

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), valid in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), is valid, must Article 4(3) of the Regulation, in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 7(f) of the Privacy Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of the Privacy Directive, be interpreted to mean that, when the Member States give effect to Regulation No 2252/2004, there should be a statutory guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation may not be collected, processed and used for any purposes other than the issuing of the document?






(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).