do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) No 891/2013 of 16 September 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Portugal, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2013247EN.01002901.xml










18.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 247/29








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 891/2013
of 16 September 2013
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean by vessels flying the flag of Portugal


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to 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), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2013.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2013.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 September 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.




ANNEX






No


43/TQ40




Member State


Portugal




Stock


BET/ATLANT




Species


Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)




Zone


Atlantic Ocean




Date


20.8.2013
Case T-250/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Knut IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KNUT – DER EISBÄR — Earlier national word mark KNUD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2013336EN.01001702.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/17





Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Knut IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR)
(Case T-250/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KNUT – DER EISBÄR - Earlier national word mark KNUD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2013/C 336/34
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Knut IP Management Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by C. Jaeckel, then by J. Steinberg, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Schulz and P. Vatankhah, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2010 (Case R 650/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG and Knut IP Management Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Knut IP Management Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
Joined Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Glantenay and Others v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/204/10 — Selection on the basis of qualifications — Elimination of candidates without specific examination of their degrees and diplomas and professional experience)
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, admission to examinations, competition (EU), professional experience, professional qualifications








C_2014071EN.01003102.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/31






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Glantenay and Others v Commission
(Joined Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/204/10 - Selection on the basis of qualifications - Elimination of candidates without specific examination of their degrees and diplomas and professional experience)
(2014/C 71/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Jérôme Glantenay and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)
Applicant: Marco Cecchetto (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 not to admit the applicants to the next stage of the competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decisions of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 to reject the applications of Mssrs Bonagurio, Cecchetto, Gecse, Glantenay, Gorgol, Kalamees and Skrobich and of Ms Venckunaite and Ms Załęska from the competition procedure without examining them in the context of the second stage of the selection based on qualifications laid down in the competition notice;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the actions in Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear nine tenths of its costs and to pay those incurred by Mssrs Bonagurio, Cecchetto, Gecse, Glantenay, Gorgol, Kalamees and Skrobich and by Ms Venckunaite and Ms Załęska;










4.


Orders Ms Cruceru to bear her own costs and to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ 2012 C 138, p. 35; OJ 2012 C 138, p. 36.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 910/2013 of 16 September 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Trote del Trentino (PGI))
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy, designation of origin, freshwater fish, product designation








L_2013252EN.01000101.xml










24.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 252/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 910/2013
of 16 September 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Trote del Trentino (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Trote del Trentino’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).












(3)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Trote del Trentino’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 September 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(3)  
            OJ C 294, 29.9.2012, p. 19.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.7.   Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom

ITALY
Trote del Trentino (PGI)
Case T-284/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM (PROSEPT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PROSEPT — Earlier national word mark Pursept — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of defence — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013336EN.01002101.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/21





Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM (PROSEPT)
(Case T-284/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROSEPT - Earlier national word mark Pursept - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
2013/C 336/41
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Oro Clean Chemie AG (Fehraltorf, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch and C. Mayerhöffer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2012 (Case R 1053/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA and Oro Clean Chemie AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Oro Clean Chemie AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
Case T-3/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Environmental infrastructure projects under way in the territory of Andalucia (Spain) — Partial withdrawal of financial assistance — Public works and services contracts — Award criteria — Publicity — Eligibility of expenditure — Determination of the financial corrections — Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Proportionality)
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Andalusia, Cohesion Fund, Spain, award of contract, equal treatment, financial aid, services contract, suspension of aid, works contract








C_2013325EN.01002001.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/20





Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-3/07) (1)

(Cohesion fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Environmental infrastructure projects under way in the territory of Andalucia (Spain) - Partial withdrawal of financial assistance - Public works and services contracts - Award criteria - Publicity - Eligibility of expenditure - Determination of the financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Proportionality)
2013/C 325/32
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, then A. Rubio González, lawyers in the State legal service)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Steiblytė and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents, and by M. Canal Fontcuberta, lawyer, then A. Steiblytė and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5103 of 20 October 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund for five projects being undertaken in the Autonomous Community of Andalucia (Spain).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Articles 2 to 6 Commission Decision C(2006) 5103 of 20 October 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund for five projects being undertaken in the Autonomous Community of Andalucia (Spain) in so far as they include an amount of EUR 476 460 by way of financial corrections concerning the projects bearing the references 2000.ES.16.C.PE.004, 2000.ES.16.C.PE.025, 2000.ES.16.C.PE.066 et 2000.ES.16.C.PE.0138;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the application;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
Case T-618/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — 2008 appraisal and promotion period — Decision of the Appeals Committee — Scope of review — Assessment report — Plea of illegality — Reasonable period — Claim for setting aside — Claim for damages — Lis pendens)
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Investment Bank, European civil service, promotion, staff assessment








C_2013313EN.01002502.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/25





Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-618/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - 2008 appraisal and promotion period - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Scope of review - Assessment report - Plea of illegality - Reasonable period - Claim for setting aside - Claim for damages - Lis pendens)
2013/C 313/50
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, and subsequently by Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claim seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB);










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;










3.


Dismisses the action brought by Mr De Nicola before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-13/10;










4.


Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and half of the costs incurred by the EIB relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal;










5.


Orders the EIB to bear half of its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case C-494/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-205/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2013325EN.01001602.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/16





Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-205/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-494/13 P)
2013/C 325/28
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-205/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 in Case R 387/2011-1;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a single plea in law, namely misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. (1)

In support of that plea, the appellant alleges that:






 


The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘identity of the goods’ because it equated the goods ‘cigars’ with the generic term ‘tobacco products’. By so doing, the General Court unduly extended the scope of the opposing mark.










 


The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘similarity of the goods’ because in assessing the similarity of the goods it also should not have sweepingly considered the individual goods ‘cigars’ to be similar to the generic term ‘smokers’ articles’.










 


When comparing the signs, the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment theory because it sweepingly compared the components ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in so doing took no account of all the other components of the marks.










 


In particular, several other components of the marks at issue have dominant aspects, including the colour combination of the mark at issue and the opposing figurative mark and the ‘LA’ label.










 


The General Court also misapplied the principles established by the Court of Justice on conceptual similarity since it did not sufficiently take into account the different languages of the marks.










 


Overall, the General Court thereby came to a wrong conclusion.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark; OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case T-386/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Dornbracht v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Plea of illegality — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Non-retroactivity)
Date: 2013-09-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, exchange of information, plumbing equipment, price increase, restriction on competition, selling price, trade information








C_2013325EN.01002801.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/28





Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Dornbracht v Commission
(Case T-386/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Plea of illegality - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Non-retroactivity)
2013/C 325/46
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Janssen, T. Kapp and M. Franz, and subsequently by H. Janssen and T. Kapp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.