ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/4

Order of the Court of 4 July 2012 — Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Communauté d’Agglomération du Douaisis, European Commission

(Case C-389/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Construction of railway equipment - Decisions declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery)

2012/C 303/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais (represented by: M. Cliquennois and F. Cavedon, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Communauté d’Agglomération du Douaisis, European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission and Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis v Commission dismissing the actions, initially, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1089 final of 2 April 2008, then for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4112 final of 23 June 2010, on State aid C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007) implemented by France in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA — Construction of railway equipment — Recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of the right to be heard

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/3

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag v Belgian State

(Case C-540/11) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends - Bilateral convention which precludes double taxation - Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its national legislation, having the effect of reintroducing double taxation - Obligations of the Member States under Articles 10 EC and 293 EC)

2013/C 101/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 57(2) EC and 293 EC — Permissibility of rules of national law which allow double taxation notwithstanding the existence of a bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Amendment of national law after the convention had been concluded — Bringing into question of an acquired right — Obstacle to the free movement of capital

Operative part of the order

Insofar as Community law, as applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 10 EC and 293 EC, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a situation in which the Member State, which has undertaken, in a bilateral double taxation convention, to establish a mechanism to eliminate such double taxation of dividends, then abolishes that mechanism by way of a legislative amendment that has the effect of reintroducing a double taxation.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/5

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia — Italy) — Gennaro Currà and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-466/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Action brought by the victims of massacres against a Member State as the party liable for acts committed by its armed forces in wartime - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2012/C 303/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gennaro Currà, Nadia Orlandi heir of Aldo Orlandi, Renzo Ciro Malago heir of Federico Malago, Ruberto Ezecchia, Camillo Turchetti, Franco Forni, Ilva Morselli heir of Ermenegildo Morselli, Elisa Ghisolfi and Anna Ghisolfi joint heirs of Luca Ghisolfi, Primo Zelioli, Francesco Perondi, Anna Furgeri heir of Agide Furgeri, Elena Penzani and Gian Luigi Penzani joint heirs of Carlo Penzani, Renato Mortari, Ada Zaccaria heir of Sigifredo Zaccaria, Erino Alberti, Gabriella Boccaletti heir of Mario Boccaletti, Rita Boccasanta heir of Ernesto Boccasanta, Alberto Borelli, Pierantonio Foresti heir of Franco Foresti, Irmo Sancassiani, Ennio Mischi heir of Aldo Mischi, Graziano Broglia heir of Rosolino Broglia, Alba Spinella and Maria Raffaella Spinella joint heirs of Vincenzo Rocco Spinella, Giuseppe Ferri, Alessandra Fontanabona heir of Giulio Fontanabona, Luciana, Mariuccia and Giulietta Pedratti joint heirs of Carlo Pedratti, Raffaele Colucci

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

In the presence of: Repubblica italiana

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Brescia — Interpretation of Articles 3, 4(3), 6 and 21 TEU and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Crimes against humanity — Action brought by victims of massacres against a Member State as the party liable for acts committed by its armed forces in wartime — Victims’ right to compensation — Whether time-barring of this right is permissible — Whether it is permissible that the Member State in question should claim immunity from jurisdiction

Operative part of the order

It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia (Italy).

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/7

Order of the Court of 6 December 2012 — GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-682/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 - Authentication of euro coins - Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation - Article 8(2) - Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person directly concerned)

2013/C 108/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Neergaard, agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and M. Simm, agents)

Re:

Appeal against order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS v Parliament and Council, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1) — Acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons — Condition of direct concern

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/2

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa as

(Case C-252/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 101/02

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Erika Šujetová

Defendant: Rapid life životná poisťovňa as

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Provision of national law under which exclusive jurisdiction in relation to an application for annulment of an arbitral award is attributed to the court in whose area of jurisdiction the arbitration proceedings took place — Provision of national law under which that court is under an obligation, upon annulling an arbitral award, to continue the main proceedings without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction — Unfair arbitration agreement or arbitration clause

Operative part of the order

It is not necessary to give a ruling on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia), by decision of 7 April 2011 in Case C-252/11.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/39

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA v European Commission, Portuguese Republic

(Case C-242/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Articles 149 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Reduction of financial assistance - No need to adjudicate - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 225/67

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA (represented by: N. Ruiz, advogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, L. Flynn and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-401/07 Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Decision C(2007) 3772 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995, and a claim for an order against the Commission to pay the final balance of the financial assistance under Article 238 EC

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings.

3. The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/11

Order of the President of the Court of 7 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany)) — M, N, O, p, Q v Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

(Case C-666/11) (1)

2013/C 79/19

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/7

Order of the Court of 4 July 2012 — Gino Trevisanato v European Commission

(Case C-25/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Application seeking an order that the Commission take a position concerning the interpretation and the transposition of a directive - Manifest inadmissibility)

2012/C 303/14

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Gino Trevisanato (represented by L. Sulfaro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Trevisanato v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action seeking an order that the Commission take a position on the complaint lodged by the applicant — Failure by the Commission to adopt a binding opinion on the scope 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) — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Conditions for application of Article 111 of the Rules and Procedures of the General Court

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Trevisanato is ordered to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/11

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Spain) — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA

(Case C-194/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Annual leave scheduled by the undertaking coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take annual leave at another time - Allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken)

2013/C 108/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Concepción Maestre García

Defendant: Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Worker on sick leave during the annual leave period fixed by the company — Entitlement of the worker to take leave at another time.

Operative part of the order

1. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation according to which a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled unilaterally in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, following the end of his sick leave, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period, for reasons connected with production or organisation of the undertaking.

2. Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation that permits, while the contract of employment is in force, the payment of an allowance in lieu of the period of annual leave which the worker was not able to take as a result of work incapacity.

(1) OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/15

Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-307/12) (1)

2013/C 63/29

Language of the case: Bulgarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/12

Order of the Court of 15 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel, Brașov — Romania) — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, reprezentant al reclamanților Chițea Constantin și alții v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov

(Case C-369/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

2013/C 108/24

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central

Defendant: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel, Brașov — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 20, 21(1) and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Admissibility of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the right of property

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel, Brașov (Romania), made by decision of 27 June 2012.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/6

Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 11 December 2012 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack

(Case C-579/12 RX)

(2013/C 71/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

Appellant: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack

Questions to be reviewed

The review shall concern the questions whether – having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the entitlement to paid annual leave as a principle of European Union social law, which is also expressly affirmed in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is covered in particular by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) – the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 November 2012 in Case T 268/11 P Commission v Strack affects the unity or consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court:

— interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and

— consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform.

The persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the parties to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union are invited to lodge their written observations on those questions at the Court of Justice of the European Union within one month of the service of the present decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/52

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fidenato Giorgio

(Case C-542/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered in the common catalogue - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 20 - Existing products - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 26a - Measures to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms)

2013/C 225/93

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy)

Criminal proceedings against

Fidenato Giorgio

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Pordenone — Interpretation of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) — National legislation making the cultivation of GMOs, entered in the common catalogue of varieties, subject to an authorisation procedure to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms in other crops (principle of coexistence)

Operative part of the order

European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that the cultivation of genetically modified organisms such as maize varieties MON 810 cannot be made subject to a national authorisation procedure, where the use and marketing of those varieties are authorised under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, and where those varieties have been entered in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species provided for in Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation No 1829/2003. Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Directive 2008/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from opposing the cultivation on its territory of such genetically modified organisms on the ground that obtaining a national authorisation would constitute a coexistence measure to avoid the accidental present of genetically modified organisms in other crops.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/57

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, trading under the name ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Case C-227/12) (1)

2013/C 225/114

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/49

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-393/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark HELLIM - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark HALLOUMI - Opposition dismissed)

2013/C 225/87

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (represented by: C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case T-534/10 Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG — Likelihood of confusion — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.