do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-16/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 October 2012 — Verstreken v Council
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: promotion








C_2012379EN.01003701.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/37





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 October 2012 — Verstreken v Council
(Case F-16/10) (1)

2012/C 379/64
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010, p. 55.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 771/2012 of 23 August 2012 making imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America subject to registration in application of Article 24(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community ( OJ L 229, 24.8.2012 )
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United States, anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, biofuel, import (EU), originating product




L_2012287EN.01002501.xml










18.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 287/25







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 771/2012 of 23 August 2012 making imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America subject to registration in application of Article 24(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 229 of 24 August 2012
)

On page 21, the first paragraph of Article 1(1) is replaced by the following:


‘1.   The Customs authorities are hereby directed, pursuant to Article 24(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, to take the appropriate steps to register the imports into the Union of bioethanol, sometimes referred to as “fuel ethanol”, i.e. ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (as listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), denatured or undenatured, excluding products with a water content of more than 0,3 % (m/m) measured according to the standard EN 15376, as well as ethyl alcohol produced from agricultural products (as listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) contained in blends with gasoline with an ethyl alcohol content of more than 10 % (v/v) currently falling within CN codes ex 2207 10 00 , ex 2207 20 00 , ex 2208 90 99 , ex 2710 12 11 , ex 2710 12 15 , ex 2710 12 21 , ex 2710 12 25 , ex 2710 12 31 , ex 2710 12 41 , ex 2710 12 45 , ex 2710 12 49 , ex 2710 12 51 , ex 2710 12 59 , ex 2710 12 70 , ex 2710 12 90 , ex 3814 00 10 , ex 3814 00 90 , ex 3820 00 00  and ex 3824 90 97  (TARIC codes 2207 10 00 11, 2207 20 00 11, 2208 90 99 11, 2710 12 11 10, 2710 12 15 10, 2710 12 21 10, 2710 12 25 91, 2710 12 31 10, 2710 12 41 10, 2710 12 45 10, 2710 12 49 10, 2710 12 51 10, 2710 12 59 10, 2710 12 70 10, 2710 12 90 10, 3814 00 10 10, 3814 00 90 70, 3820 00 00 10 and 3824 90 97 67) and originating in the United States of America. Registration shall expire nine months following the date of entry into force of this Regulation.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6641 — Verbund/Siemens/E-Mobility Provider Austria)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, economic concentration, electrical engineering, electricity supply, electronics industry, merger control, provision of services








C_2012314EN.01000101.xml










18.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6641 — Verbund/Siemens/E-Mobility Provider Austria)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 314/01
On 20 September 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 German 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 32012M6641. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-502/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — State Secretary van Justitie v Mangat Singh (Directive 2003/109/EC — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Scope — Article 3(2)(e) — Residence based on a formally limited permit)
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Netherlands, foreign national, residence permit








C_2012379EN.01000401.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — State Secretary van Justitie v Mangat Singh
(Case C-502/10) (1)

(Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Scope - Article 3(2)(e) - Residence based on a formally limited permit)
2012/C 379/06
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendant: Mangat Singh

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Concept of a ‘formally limited residence permit’ — Residence permit not offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration, but which can be extended indefinitely

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘residence permit [which] has been formally limited’ does not include a fixed-period residence permit, granted to a specific group of persons, the validity of which may be extended indefinitely without however offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration where such a formal limitation does not prevent the long-term residence of the third country national in the Member State concerned, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
Joined Cases C-101/11 P and C-102/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Appeals — Community design — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 6, 25(1)(b) and (e), and 61 — Registered Community design or model representing a seated figure — Earlier Community figurative mark — Different overall impression — Degree of freedom of the designer — Informed user — Scope of judicial review — No statement of reasons)
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, graphic illustration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012379EN.01000701.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/7





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA
(Joined Cases C-101/11 P and C-102/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community design - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 6, 25(1)(b) and (e), and 61 - Registered Community design or model representing a seated figure - Earlier Community figurative mark - Different overall impression - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Scope of judicial review - No statement of reasons)
2012/C 379/11
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel (represented by: S. Miguez Pereira, abogada), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, abogado)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Case T-513/09 Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (seated figure), by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders Mr Neuman and Mr Galdeano del Sel to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA in relation to the appeal in Case C-101/11 P;










3.


Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA in relation to the appeal in Case C-102/11 P.






(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.
Case T-457/12: Action brought on 18 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013063EN.01002001.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/20





Action brought on 18 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)
(Case T-457/12)
2013/C 63/40
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 428/2012-4;










—


Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 428/2012-4 and grant the request for re-establishment of rights, and i) primarily, annul the decision of OHIM to allow conversion, or, ii) alternatively, allow Stromberg Menswear to appeal the decision of OHIM to allow the conversion and refer the appeal back to the Board of Appeal; and










—


Order OHIM to pay any and all costs and legal fees incurred by Stromberg Menswear in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘STORMBERG’, for goods and services in class 25 — Community trade mark registration No 2557155

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the cancellation proceedings closed following a surrender of the contested CTM by its proprietor

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Articles 57 to 60 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 48(1)(c) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-301/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste water treatment — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3, 4 and 10 — Annex I(A) and (B))
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: urban area, wastewater, water treatment








C_2012379EN.01000201.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-301/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Annex I(A) and (B))
2012/C 379/02
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, A.-A. Gilly and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, D. Anderson QC, and S. Ford and B. McGurk, Barristers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(1) and (2), 4(1) and (3) and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) and of Annex I(A) and (B) thereto — Failure to have ensured the appropriate treatment of urban waste water from several parts of London (Whitburn, Beckton, Crossness and Mogden)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to ensure:






—


appropriate collection of the urban waste water of the agglomerations, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, of Sunderland (Whitburn) and London (Beckton and Crossness collecting systems), in accordance with Article 3(1) and (2) of, and Annex I(A) to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, and










—


appropriate treatment of the urban waste water of the agglomeration, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, of London (Beckton, Crossness and Mogden treatment plants), in accordance with Article 4(1) and (3) and Article 10 of, and Annex I(B) to, Directive 91/271,




the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










2.


Orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for three EFTA States applicable as from 1 June 2012 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 )
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2012314EN.01000401.xml










18.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/4





The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for three EFTA States applicable as from 1 June 2012

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004
 (1)
)

2012/C 314/04
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of the Authority’s State aid Guidelines as amended by the Authority’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008 (2). To get the applicable reference rate, appropriate margins have to be added in accordance with the State aid Guidelines. For the discount rate this means that the appropriate margin of 100 basis points has to be added to the base rate. The recovery rate will also normally be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate as foreseen in the Authority’s Decision No 789/08/COL of 17 December 2008 (3) amending the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (4).








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.1.2012-31.5.2012


4,70


0,31


3,57




1.6.2012-


4,70


0,38


3,57






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 105, 21.4.2011, p. 32 and EEA Supplement No 23, 21.4.2011, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 340, 22.12.2010, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 72, 22.12.2010, p. 1.

(4)  See consolidated version on http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf
Case C-173/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Article 7 — Sui generis right — Database relating to football league matches in progress — Concept of re-utilisation — Localisation of the act of re-utilisation)
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data transmission, database, intellectual property, network server, professional sport








C_2012379EN.01000702.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG
(Case C-173/11) (1)

(Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Article 7 - Sui generis right - Database relating to football league matches in progress - Concept of re-utilisation - Localisation of the act of re-utilisation)
2012/C 379/12
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd

Defendant: Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20), in particular Article 7 — Right of the maker of a database to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of part of the contents of the database — Concepts of extraction and re-utilisation (Article 7(2) of the directive) — Database containing information on football matches in progress (‘Football Live’)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that the sending by one person, by means of a web server located in Member State A, of data previously uploaded by that person from a database protected by the sui generis right under that directive to the computer of another person located in Member State B, at that person’s request, for the purpose of storage in that computer’s memory and display on its screen, constitutes an act of ‘re-utilisation’ of the data by the person sending it. That act takes place, at least, in Member State B, where there is evidence from which it may be concluded that the act discloses an intention on the part of the person performing the act to target members of the public in Member State B, which is for the national court to assess.


(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
Case C-583/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — United States of America v Christine Nolan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Protection of workers — Collective redundancies — Scope — Closure of an American military base — Information and consultation of workers — Time at which the consultation obligation arises — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United States, collective dismissal, military base, worker consultation








C_2012379EN.01000501.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — United States of America v Christine Nolan
(Case C-583/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Protection of workers - Collective redundancies - Scope - Closure of an American military base - Information and consultation of workers - Time at which the consultation obligation arises - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
2012/C 379/07
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: United States of America

Defendant: Christine Nolan

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Employer’s obligation to inform and consult the workers’ representatives — Determination of the time at which that obligation arises

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), by decision of 6 December 2010.


(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
Thresholds referred to in Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011, expressed in the national currencies of the EFTA States
Date: 2012-10-18
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA countries, award of contract, national currency








C_2012314EN.01000501.xml










18.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/5





Thresholds referred to in Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011, expressed in the national currencies of the EFTA States
2012/C 314/05








 


Thresholds in NOK


Thresholds in CHF


Thresholds in ISK




Thresholds in EUR


 


 


 




130 000


1 042 319


176 310


21 540 485




200 000


1 603 568


271 246


33 139 208




400 000


3 207 136


542 492


66 278 416




5 000 000


40 089 200


6 781 150


828 480 200