do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-492/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013313EN.01002402.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/24





Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon)
(Case T-492/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
2013/C 313/47
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant:‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Stütz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2011 (Case R 2168/2010-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sanitary tampon as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
Case C-64/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ v Melitta Josefa Boedeker (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Contract of employment — Article 6(2) — Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties — Law of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ — Contract more closely connected with another Member State)
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, contractual liability, interpretation of the law, work contract








C_2013325EN.01000602.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ v Melitta Josefa Boedeker
(Case C-64/12) (1)

(Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Contract of employment - Article 6(2) - Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties - Law of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ - Contract more closely connected with another Member State)
2013/C 325/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’

Defendant: Melitta Josefa Boedeker

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1) — Law applicable where none chosen — Employment contract — Law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work — Employee who has carried out his work for a lengthy period and without interruption in a particular Member State — Employment contract which appears, in the light of all the other circumstances of the case, to be very closely connected with another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that, even where an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract habitually, for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the national court may, under the concluding part of that provision, disregard the law of the country where the work is habitually carried out, if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country.


(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
Case C-493/13: Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative check, national implementing measure, regulation of telecommunications, transmission network








C_2013344EN.01004802.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/48





Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-493/13)
2013/C 344/84
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Nicolae and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to ensure, in the case of the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, effective structural separation of the regulatory function from activities associated with ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; (1)











—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium (Ministry of the Economy and Communications) is included in the scope of the concept of ‘national regulatory authority’ defined in Article 2(g) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and the provisions of Article 3 of the Framework Directive apply to it, especially in connection with the structural separation referred to in Article 3(2).
The Commission submits that in addition to regulatory tasks the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium of the Republic of Estonia also carries out activity associated with the ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services. Effective structural separation of the two functions is not ensured, which is contrary to the requirements of Article 3(2) of the Framework Directive.


(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.
Case T-580/12: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Yaqub v OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK) (Community trade mark — Appointment of a new representative — Applicant’s failure to act — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Türkiye, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013336EN.01002403.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/24





Order of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Yaqub v OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)
(Case T-580/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Applicant’s failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 336/52
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: J. Yaqub (Nottingham, United Kingdom)

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

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being: Republic of Turkey

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 2613/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between the Republic of Turkey, and J. Yaqub and G. Yaqub.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application.










2.


J. Yaqub shall bear his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7032 — Koninklijke Reesink/Pon European Material Handling Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, distributive trades, economic concentration, iron and steel product, machine tool, merger control








C_2013263EN.01001201.xml










12.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7032 — Koninklijke Reesink/Pon European Material Handling Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 263/13






1.


On 4 September 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Koninklijke Reesink NV (Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the undertakings Pon Material Handling Europe BV (Netherlands) and Motrac Hydraulik GmbH (Germany) and joint control of the undertaking Pelzer Fördertechnik GmbH (Germany) (jointly referred to as Pon European Material Handling Business) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Koninklijke Reesink NV: distribution of (i) branded machinery and equipment for agricultural, landscaping, construction and earth moving applications; (ii) professional cleaning machines, (iii) steel products and (iv) personal safety products with a focus on the Netherlands and Belgium,










—


for Pon European Material Handling Business: distribution of (i) hydraulic components and systems for industrial, agricultural and shipping applications, (ii) internal transport equipment (iii) professional cleaning machines., (iv) fast charging lithium ion battery solutions for the material handling market and (v) warehouse materials.














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.7032 — Koninklijke Reesink/Pon European Material Handling Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
Case T-126/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), food safety, language policy, official language








C_2013313EN.01001901.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/19





Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-126/09) (1)

(Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)
2013/C 313/34
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009 (OJ 2009, C 9 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
Case T-457/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, electronic component








C_2013313EN.01002401.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/24





Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission
(Case T-457/11) (1)

(Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 313/46
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Valeo Vision (Bobigny, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. R. Killmann and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of the Commission of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 163, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible.










2.


Orders Valeo Vision to pay its own costs and those of the European Commission






(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
Case T-380/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, foodstuff








C_2013313EN.01002301.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/23





Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission
(Case T-380/11) (1)

(Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 313/43
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE (Politika, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6971 — Warburg Pincus/General Atlantic/Santander/Santander Asset Management)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2013263EN.01000201.xml










12.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6971 — Warburg Pincus/General Atlantic/Santander/Santander Asset Management)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 263/03
On 22 August 2013, 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 32013M6971. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, means of public conveyance, public service, underground railway, vehicle on rails








C_2013263EN.01000701.xml










12.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/7





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
2013/C 263/08
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that certain of the following measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


8 May 2013




Case number


:


70506




Decision number


:


181/13/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Region


:


Oslo




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Alleged aid to Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS (‘KTP’), Oslo Vognselskap AS and Unibuss AS




Legal basis


:


Article 61 EEA




Type of measure


:


No aid
and
existing aid in the form of public service compensation for public transport services (metro and tram) and related services (development of a payment and ticketing system)




Objective


:


Local scheduled transport by metro and tram




Form of aid


:


Guarantees, loans and direct grants in the form of public service compensation




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Oslo Municipality




Rådhuset




0037 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6966 — 3i Group/Barclays Infrastructure Funds Management)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2013263EN.01000101.xml










12.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6966 — 3i Group/Barclays Infrastructure Funds Management)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 263/01
On 29 August 2013, 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 32013M6966. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, Netherlands, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








C_2013263EN.01000401.xml










12.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/4





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2013/C 263/05
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


12.8.2013




Duration


12.8.2013-31.12.2013




Member State


The Netherlands




Stock or group of stocks


POK/2A34.




Species


Saithe (Pollachius virens)




Zone


IIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc and Subdivisions 22-32




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


36/TQ40






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2013-09-12
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, control of State aid








C_2013263EN.01000901.xml










12.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/9





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
2013/C 263/10
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


30 April 2013




Case number


:


71170




Decision number


:


176/13/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Redningsselskapet




Type of measure


:


No aid




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Royal Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs




PO Box 8118 Dep.




0032 Oslo




NORWAY




and





Norsk Tipping AS




PO Box 4414 Bedriftssenteret




2325 Hamar




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/