ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/16

Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — J. Sebastian Guevara Kamm v TAM Airlines S.A./TAM Linhas Aereas S.A.

(Case C-316/12) (1)

2013/C 63/30

Language of the case: German

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 108/19

Order of the President of the Court of 4 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-332/12) (1)

2013/C 108/50

Language of the case: Polish

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

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/4

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social — Spain) — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

(Case C-178/12) (1)

(Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Determination of length of service - Difference in treatment between civil servants and contractual staff - Taking into account previous periods of employment completed in the administration - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2013/C 129/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rafaela Rivas Montes

Defendant: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo social — Interpretation of Article 45(4) TFEU — National legislation governing the method of calculation of length-of-service increments in the civil service — Application by a public authority of different rules according to whether the employment relationship is of a public service or of a contractual kind — Failure to take into account certain periods of service completed by contractual staff

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spain) by decision of 27 February 2012.

(1) OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/56

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-29/12) (1)

2013/C 225/108

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
1.

Articles 63 and 65 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, where a building right is established in favour of a company with a view to the construction of a building of which it is to own 75 % of the total built area, in consideration for the construction of the remaining 25 %, which that company undertakes to deliver in a fully completed state to the persons who established that building right, they do not preclude the value added tax on the supply of the construction services from becoming chargeable from the moment the building right is established, that is to say before those services are supplied, in so far as, when that right was established, all the relevant elements of that future supply of services are already known and therefore, in particular, the services at issue are designated in detail, and the value of that right may be expressed in financial terms, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. The fact that the establishment of that building right is an exempted transaction carried out by persons who are not deemed taxable persons or persons liable for payment within the meaning of that directive has no effect in this respect.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/56

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany supported by the Slovak Republic

(Case C-146/12) (1)

2013/C 225/111

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/57

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-308/12) (1)

2013/C 225/116

Language of the case: Polish

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

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/38

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo v European Commission

(Case C-34/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Action for damages - Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure - Prejudicial statements - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 344/65

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 Idromacchine and Others v Commission, by which the General Court rejected in part an action for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered as the result of the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of false information which, inter alia, adversely affected the image and reputation of Idromacchine in Commission Decision C(2002) 5426 final of 30 December 2004, ‘State aid — Italy — Extension of the 3-year delivery limit for a chemical tanker — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) [EC]’ — Duty of care — Breach of the rights of the defence — Absence of grounds

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo and Roberto Capuzzo shall jointly and severally pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/45

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Novontech-Zala kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

(Case C-324/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Opposition lodged out of time - Article 20 - Review in exceptional cases - No ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances)

2013/C 225/78

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novontech-Zala kft

Defendant: LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 20(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) — Opposition to a European order for payment made after the time limit as a result of an error on the part of the lawyer of the party concerned — Possible existence of a case of force majeure or of extraordinary circumstances

Operative part of the order

The failure to observe the time-limit for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, by reason of the negligence of the defendant’s representative, does not justify a review of that order for payment, since such a failure to observe the time-limit does not constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(1)(b) or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/5

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — J v European Parliament

(Case C-550/12 P) (1)

((Article 227 TFEU - Right of petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action - Subject not falling within an area of activity of the European Union))

2014/C 102/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: J (represented by: A. Auer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by Mr J seeking annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 to shelve the appellant’s petition of 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009) without taking any further action — Lack of reasoning — Infringement of fundamental rights.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.

3. J shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/4

Order of the Court of 12 September 2013 — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-616/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Time-limit for instituting proceedings)

2013/C 377/06

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (represented by: K Chrysogonos and A. Kaidatzis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-466/11 Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and Hoern v Commission, in which the General Court declared an action for the annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010, accepting the undertakings offered by Greece in exchange for measures required by the Commission in its decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008, declaring aid granted by the Greek authorities to Ellinika Nafpigeia (Hellenic Shipyards, ‘HSY’), to be incompatible with the common market, in the context of amendments to the initial investment plan relating to the restructuring of that shipyard (State aid C 16/2004 (ex NN29/2004, CP 71/2002 et CP 133/2005)).

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/3

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Greinwald GmbH v Nicolas Wessang, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-608/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 169(2) of those rules - Content required in the application initiating an appeal))

2014/C 261/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Greinwald GmbH (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Nicolas Wessang (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

1. The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

2. Greinwald GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.

3. Nicolas Wessang is ordered to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/22

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Peter Macinský, Eva Macinská v Getfin s.r.o., Financreal s.r.o.

(Case C-482/12) (1)

2014/C 184/29

Language of the case: Slovak

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

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/8

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

(Case C-5/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU - Free movement of workers - National legislation under which a driver using a vehicle with foreign registration plates must prove the lawfulness of its use on the spot, during a police inspection, on pain of a fine))

2014/C 102/09

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferenc Tibor Kovács

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Interpretation of the law on non-discrimination, freedom of movement for workers and the right to a fair trial — National legislation on road traffic under which only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the national authorities may be used on the roads in the national territory, and the fulfilment of the requirements which allow a derogation from that provision may be established only during an inspection — Obligation for a person residing in Member State A, working in Member State B and having, for the purposes of travelling to his workplace, the use of a vehicle owned by his employer and bearing registration plates from Member State B, to prove during the police inspection that he is lawfully using the vehicle in Member State A — No possibility for the driver of the vehicle to provide the proof of that lawful use subsequently in an administrative procedure.

Operative part of the order

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in principle, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the Member State in question may be used on the roads in that Member State and a resident of that Member State who seeks to rely on a derogation from that rule, on the ground that he uses a vehicle made available to him by his employer established in another Member State, must be able to prove on the spot, during a police inspection, that he fulfils the requirements for such a derogation, as laid down by the national legislation in question, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement, without there being any possibility of an exemption from that fine.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/24

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria — Italy) — Umbra Packaging srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Perugia

(Case C-355/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Articles 53(2) and 99 - Possible to infer the answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling clearly from the case-law - Request manifestly inadmissible - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) - Article 3 - Imposition of a government authorisation charge when a telephone subscription is taken out - Charge not applied to the use of prepaid telephone cards - Article 102 TFEU)

2014/C 52/42

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Umbra Packaging srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Perugia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) and of Article 102 TFEU — National legislation imposing a fee on mobile telephone operators — Imposition of a government authorisation charge when a telephone subscription is taken out — Charge not applied to the use of prepaid telephone cards

Operative part of the order

Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as that relating to the charge on activities carried out in the context of a government concession.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/20

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Warner — Lambert Company LLC, Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE

(Case C-462/13) (1)

((Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Questions referred for a preliminary ruling identical to questions on which the Court has already ruled - Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) - Article 27 - Patentable Subject Matter - Article 70 - Protection of Existing Subject Matter))

2014/C 175/24

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Warner — Lambert Company LLC, Pfizer Ellas AE

Defendant: Minerva Farmakeftiki AE

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Polymeles Protodikeio Athens — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’) annexed to the Agreement establishing the ‘World Trade Organization’ (OJ L 336, p. 214) — Distinction between areas of Community law and those within the competence of Member States — Patenting — chemicals and pharmceuticals

Operative part of the order

1. Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the invention of a pharmaceutical product such as the active chemical compound of a medicinal product is, in the absence of a derogation in accordance with Article 27(2) or (3), capable of being the subject-matter of a patent, under the conditions set out in Article 27(1).

2. A patent obtained following an application claiming the invention both of the process of manufacture of a pharmaceutical product and of the pharmaceutical product as such, but granted solely in relation to the process of manufacture, does not, by reason of the rules set out in Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, have to be regarded from the entry into force of that agreement as covering the invention of that pharmaceutical product.

3. Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), falls within the field of the common commercial policy.

(1) OJ C 78, 15.03.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/20

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Ferenc Weigl v Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal

(Case C-332/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - No implementation of European Union law - Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction))

2014/C 112/24

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferenc Weigl

Defendant: Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and of Articles 30 and 51 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without any reason given — Official of a body of the public authorities having been dismissed on the basis of a provision of the national legislation laying down the civil service code.

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Hungary), by decision of 5 June 2013, as supplemented by an additional decision of 18 July 2013.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/24

Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Claudiu Roşu v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecţie Fiscală

(Case C-312/13) (1)

2014/C 184/37

Language of the case: Romanian

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

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.3013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/3

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów

(Case C-72/13) (1)

((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Disposal by a municipality of parts of its assets))

2014/C 184/04

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxation of the transactions of a municipality — Sale of property acquired by operation of law, by inheritance or by donation — Transfer of such property to companies

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding transactions such as those envisaged by the gmina Wrocław (municipality of Wrocław) from being subject to value added tax, in so far as the referring court states that those transactions constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive and such transactions are not carried out by that municipality as a public authority within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of that directive. However, if those transactions were to be considered to be carried out by that municipality acting as a public authority, the provisions of Directive 2006/112 would not prohibit their taxation to the extent that the referring court should find that their exemption would be capable of giving rise to significant distortions of competition within the meaning of Article 13(2) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.05.2013.