do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, India, acid, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product








C_2013027EN.01000801.xml










29.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/8





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2013/C 27/05
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 8/20, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than 3 months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Sulphanilic acid


The People's Republic of China, India


Anti-dumping duty


Council Regulation (EC) No 1000/2008 (OJ L 275, 16.10.2008, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1010/2008 (OJ L 276, 17.10.2008, p. 3)


17.10.2013




Undertaking


Commission Decision 2006/37/EC (OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 52)






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-49/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 January 2013 — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s.
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, interpretation of the law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013141EN.01001001.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 January 2013 — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s.
(Case C-49/13)
2013/C 141/16
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MF 7 a.s.

Defendant: MAFRA a.s.

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(2)(d) of … Directive [2008/95/EC] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for the assessment of whether a trade mark applicant acted in good faith, only circumstances apparent before the date or on the date of the submission of the trade mark application are relevant, or can circumstances which occurred after the application was submitted also be used as supporting evidence of the fact that the applicant acted in good faith?










2.


Is it necessary to apply the judgment in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 (2) generally to all cases where it is being assessed whether a trade mark proprietor agreed to conduct which may result in weakening or limitation of his exclusive rights ?










3.


Is it possible to infer good faith on the part of an applicant for a later trade mark from the situation in which the proprietor of an earlier trade mark concluded agreements with it, on the basis of which that proprietor consented to the publication of periodical printed material whose designation was similar to mark applied for by the later trade mark applicant, agreed with the registration of that printed material by the applicant for a later trade mark and offered that applicant support in its publication, but the agreements concerned nevertheless did not expressly regulate the issue of the intellectual property right?










4.


In so far as circumstances occurring after a trade mark application was submitted may also be relevant for the purposes of the assessment of whether the trade mark applicant acted in good faith, is it possible, in the alternative, to infer the fact that the applicant acted in good faith from the situation in which the proprietor of the earlier trade mark knowingly tolerated the existence of the contested trade mark for a period of at least ten years?






(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

(2)  ECR I-08691.
Case F-79/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 January 2013 — Brus v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Application instituting proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the grounds on which the application is based — Action manifestly inadmissble)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, disciplinary proceedings, infringement of EU law, lawyer, social-security benefit








C_2013147EN.01003502.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/35





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 January 2013 — Brus v Commission
(Case F-79/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Application instituting proceedings - Formal requirements - Statement of the grounds on which the application is based - Action manifestly inadmissble)
2013/C 147/67
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Karel Brus (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: J. Duvekot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J. Baquero Cruz and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the Commission’s decisions to dismiss the applicant from his functions and to reduce the amount of his pension following disciplinary proceedings brought finding an infringement of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Brus shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 18.
Case T-662/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Sunless — Earlier Community word marks SUNLESS and LONCAR-SUNLESS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, man-made fibre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013071EN.01001801.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/18





Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless)
(Case T-662/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Sunless - Earlier Community word marks SUNLESS and LONCAR-SUNLESS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 71/27
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Thomas Müller (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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: Loncar, SL (Sabadell, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 2508/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Loncar, SL and Mr Thomas Müller

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Thomas Müller to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
Joined Cases T-339/10 and T-532/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Cosepuri v EFSA (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Shuttle service in Italy and Europe — Tenderer’s bid rejected — Decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Non-contractual liability — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Bid of the successful tenderer — Access refused — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, access to EU information, award of contract, contractual liability, damages, indemnification, invitation to tender, services contract








C_2013071EN.01001502.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/15





Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Cosepuri v EFSA
(Joined Cases T-339/10 and T-532/10) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Shuttle service in Italy and Europe - Tenderer’s bid rejected - Decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Non-contractual liability - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Bid of the successful tenderer - Access refused - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
2013/C 71/22
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Cosepuri Soc. Coop. pA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: F. Fiorenza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment relating to tender procedure CFT/EFSA/FIN/2010/01 for the award of a shuttle service contract in Italy and Europe (OJ 2010/S 51-074689), together with a claim for damages (Case T-339/10), and an application for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 15 September 2010 refusing to grant the applicant access to the bid of the successful tenderer in the tender procedure in question (Case T-532/10)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Cosepuri Soc. Coop. pA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Case T-25/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Manual tile-cutting machine) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community three-dimensional mark — Manual tile-cutting machine — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, ceramics, equal treatment, machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013071EN.01001602.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/16





Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Manual tile-cutting machine)
(Case T-25/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community three-dimensional mark - Manual tile-cutting machine - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
2013/C 71/24
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Germans Boada, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2010 (Case R 771/2010-1), relating to an application for registration of the three-dimensional sign representing a manual tile-cutting machine as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Germans Boada, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
Case T-650/11: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative transparency, electronic mail, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality








C_2013086EN.01002901.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/29





Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament
(Case T-650/11) (1)

2013/C 86/49
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
Case T-273/00: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Unindustria and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, Veneto, common market, reimbursement of aid, social-security contribution, tax relief








C_2013086EN.01001601.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/16





Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Unindustria and Others v Commission
(Case T-273/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2013/C 86/25
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria) (Venice, Italy); Comitato «Venezia vuole vivere» (Venice); Siram SpA (Milan, Italy); Fiorital Srl (Venice); Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas (Venice); Grafiche Veneziane Srl (Venice); Cantiere navale De Poli SpA (Pellestrina, Italy); Aive Srl (Marcon, Italy); Bortoli Ettore Srl (Venice); Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA (Venice); Lorenzo Rubelli SpA (Venice); Tecnomare SpA (Venice); and Arsenale Venezia SpA (Venice) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola and A. Sodano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: U. Leanza initially, then I. Braguglia, then R. Adam and finally I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the order







1.


The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.










2.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










3.


The Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivire’, Siram SpA, Fiorital Srl, Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas, Grafiche Veneziane Srl, Cantiere navale De Poli SpA, Aive Srl, Bortoli Ettore Srl, Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA, Lorenzo Rubelli SpA, Tecnomare SpA and Arsenale Venezia SpA, in addition to bearing their own costs, are to pay the costs incurred by the Commission;










4.


The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
Case T-41/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Roy v Council and Commission
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, common organisation of markets, fine, infringement of EU law, marketing restriction








C_2013086EN.01002401.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/24





Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Roy v Council and Commission
(Case T-41/13)
2013/C 86/39
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: René Roy (Juillac-le-Coq, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Compensation in full for the loss suffered by reason of the fines, namely the sum of EUR 87 400;










—


Compensation in full for his non-pecuniary loss, namely the sum of EUR 100 000;










—


Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
 (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)



(1)  OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

(2)  OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.
Recruitment notice PE/162/S
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, Romania, information centre, recruitment








C_2013027EN.01000701.xml










29.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/7





Recruitment notice PE/162/S
2013/C 27/04
The European Parliament is organising the following selection procedure:

PE/162/S — Head of Unit (AD 9) — European Parliament Information Office in Romania
This selection procedure requires a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies attested by a diploma officially recognised in one of the European Union Member States.
By the closing date for applications candidates must, after obtaining the above qualification, have acquired at least 10 years’ experience in a field relevant to the job description, including 3 years in a management post.
This recruitment notice is published only in Romanian. The full text is in Official Journal C 27 A in that language.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6847 — Triton/Suomen Lähikauppa)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, private sector, retail trade








C_2013027EN.01000901.xml










29.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6847 — Triton/Suomen Lähikauppa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 27/06






1.


On 21 January 2013, 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 (together ‘Triton’, Jersey), indirectly via an acquisition vehicle Bodem Holding Finland Oy, acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of the whole of Suomen Lähikauppa Oy (‘Suomen Lähikauppa’, Finland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Triton: private equity investment in Europe,










—


for Suomen Lähikauppa: daily consumer goods retailing in Finland.














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.6847 — Triton/Suomen Lähikauppa, 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’).
Case T-43/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Donnici v Parliament
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, contractual liability, damages, indemnification, ownership








C_2013079EN.01003101.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/31





Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Donnici v Parliament
(Case T-43/13)
2013/C 79/52
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (Castrolibero, Italy) (represented by: V. Vallefuoco and J. Van Gyseghem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should find serious fault on the part of the European Parliament in relation to its decision adopted on 24 May 2007 to the applicant’s disadvantage, subsequently annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 April 2009 and, thus, order the European Parliament to make good the material and non-material damage suffered or to be suffered by him as a result of that unlawful measure, even on an equitable basis which amounts to EUR 1 720 470, or in such lesser amount as the Court considers appropriate. The applicant claims that the European Parliament should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings — who is also the applicant in Cases T-215/07 and C-9/08 Donnici v Parliament — seeks compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the defendant’s refusal to recognise the validity of his mandate as a member of the European Parliament. That decision was subsequently annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In support of his action, the applicant submits that in the present case all the conditions established by the case-law for a declaration that the institutions of the European Union are non-contractually liable are satisfied; this applies in particular to:






—


the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged;










—


the requirement for the damage to be real;










—


the existence of a causal link, and










—


fault on the part of the European Union, or the degree of infringement by it. In that regard, the applicant states that, through the decision giving rise to the present proceedings, the defendant has disregarded in a sufficiently serious manner a rule intended to confer rights on individuals.