do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-7/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, economic recession, equal treatment, gender equality, interpretation of the law, job access, promotion, vocational training, work permit








C_2012065EN.01000901.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests
(Case C-7/12)
2012/C 65/17
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nadežda Riežniece

Defendants: Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred







1.


Must the provisions of Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave included in annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (2) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC be interpreted as meaning that an employer is precluded from undertaking any action (in particular, the assessment of an employee while absent) which might result in a female employee on parental leave losing her post after returning to work?










2.


Does the answer to the previous question differ if the reason for such action is the fact that, due to the economic recession in a Member State, in all the administrations of the State the number of civil servants has been optimised and posts abolished?










3.


Must the assessment of an applicant’s work and merits which takes into account his latest annual performance appraisal as a civil servant and his results before parental leave be regarded as indirect discrimination when compared to the fact that the work and merits of other civil servants who have continued in active employment (taking the opportunity, moreover, to achieve further merit) are assessed according to fresh criteria?






(1)  OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.

(2)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.
Case F-3/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, medical examination, occupational disease, sick leave








C_2012065EN.01002702.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/27





Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-3/12)
2012/C 65/54
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have sustained as a result of the excessive duration of the procedure for recognising the serious nature of the illness from which he suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision by which the Commission rejected the request of 23 November 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority;










—


Annul Note HR.D.2/MB/ls/Ares(2011) 74616 of 24 January 2011, received by the applicant in person on 3 March 2011 and by his legal representative on a date not before 25 February 2011;










—


In so far as necessary, annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 20 May 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 23 November 2010, annul that decision, grant the request of 23 November 2010 and uphold the complaint of 20 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority;










—


In so far as necessary, confirm that the procedure for settlement of the claim of 25 November 2002 sent by the applicant to the EC continued for more than five years;










—


In so far as necessary, declare that, already by the date of the request of 23 November 2010, the duration of the procedure in question had exceeded what could be deemed reasonable and, on that ground alone, was excessive and unlawful;










—


Accordingly, order the Commission to make reparation for the material and non-material damage unjustly suffered by the applicant up to the date of the request of 23 November 2010, on account of the unreasonable, excessive and unlawful duration of the procedure in question, by paying to him the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;










—


Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, from the day following that on which the request of 23 November 2010 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, interest on that sum, with annual capitalisation, at the rate of 10 % per annum, or at the rate which the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-5/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012065EN.01001901.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/19





Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)
(Case T-5/12)
2012/C 65/36
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 November 2011 in Case R 992/2011-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks Department) of 11 March 2011 relating to Community trade mark application CTM 9094459 in so far as the application was rejected;










—


Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Wash & Coffee’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 37 and 43

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as OHIM failed to examine the facts on which it based its decision in the manner required and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff








C_2012001EN.01001001.xml










4.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/10





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
2012/C 1/04
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

Page 245

The Explanatory Note to subheading 6210 10 90 is deleted and replaced by the following Explanatory Note:

‘6210 10 92   Single-use gowns made up of fabrics of heading 5603, of a kind used by patients or surgeons during surgical procedures

Patient and surgical gowns are single-use products, usually closed at the back, and used in healthcare institutions. The gowns are used to prevent the transfer of potentially infectious agents (dry, wet or airborne) through direct contact from the surgical team to the patient and vice versa. The gowns are usually made of multiple layers of non-wovens and may be partially laminated with a plastic film to provide additional strength and protection in areas likely to be exposed to bodily fluids (e.g. forearms and abdomen). Surgical gowns may be impregnated with fluorocarbons or silicon to improve repellence.

’


Page 247

The following Explanatory Note is inserted:

‘6307 90 92   Single-use drapes made up of fabrics of heading 5603, of a kind used during surgical procedures

This subheading includes single-use made-up surgical drapes specifically designed for use during surgical operations to prevent the transfer of potentially infectious agents (dry, wet or airborne) through direct contact from the surgical team to the patient and vice versa. Surgical drapes usually consist of multiple layers of non-wovens and are made up by hemming.
Surgical drapes are used to provide a microbiologically clean working area around the patient. Surgical drapes may be impregnated with fluorocarbons or silicon to improve repellence. They may also be partially laminated with a plastic film to provide additional strength and protection in areas likely to be exposed to bodily fluids. In addition, they may be covered with paper tissue as a comfort layer in contact with patient skin. Drapes used on patients may have openings or windows to facilitate access to the patient.
This subheading does not include:






—


drapes which are impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances or put up in forms or packings for retail sale for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary purposes (heading 3005), and










—


articles having the clear characteristics of toilet linen (e.g. hand or face towels, facecloths) or kitchen linen such as tea towels or glass cloth (heading 6302).’







(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012001EN.01000201.xml










4.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

3 January 2012
2012/C 1/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3014




JPY


Japanese yen


99,86




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83510




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9283




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2183




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7350




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,688




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,55




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6993




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4744




RON


Romanian leu


4,3185




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4505




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2595




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3170




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1102




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6541




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6737




KRW


South Korean won


1 496,00




ZAR


South African rand


10,4925




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1941




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5360




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 017,70




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0857




PHP


Philippine peso


56,914




RUB


Russian rouble


41,3199




THB


Thai baht


40,916




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4069




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9613




INR


Indian rupee


69,1300






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012001EN.01000101.xml










4.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 January 2012
2012/C 1/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2935




JPY


Japanese yen


99,52




DKK


Danish krone


7,4335




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83514




SEK


Swedish krona


8,9275




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2155




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,754




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,505




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,38




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6998




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4733




RON


Romanian leu


4,3325




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4376




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2662




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3195




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0473




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6623




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6781




KRW


South Korean won


1 494,27




ZAR


South African rand


10,4599




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1529




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5343




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


1 174,




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1033




PHP


Philippine peso


56,703




RUB


Russian rouble


41,6448




THB


Thai baht


40,758




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4178




MXN


Mexican peso


18,021




INR


Indian rupee


68,95






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-4/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Internet site, access to information, disability insurance, retirement conditions








C_2012065EN.01002801.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/28





Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-4/12)
2012/C 65/55
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to forward to him all the access codes to the Commission’s Internet site, which are accessible to all Commission officials, following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 annulling the Commission’s decision to retire him on grounds of invalidity.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision sent by the appointing authority rejecting the claim set out in the request of 20 October 2010;










—


in so far as is necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 24 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the decision rejecting the request of 20 October 2010;










—


in so far as is necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case C-11/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), lodged on 4 January 2012 — Maatschap L.A. and Others v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
Date: 2012-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, aid to agriculture, fraud against the EU








C_2012098EN.01001201.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), lodged on 4 January 2012 — Maatschap L.A. and Others v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
(Case C-11/12)
2012/C 98/17
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Maatschap L.A., D.A.B. Langestraat, P. Langestraat-Troost

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Question referred

Must Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) be interpreted as imposing a reduction or an exclusion on the farmer who has submitted an aid application, such as that which would be imposed, in respect of established non-compliance, on the actual offender, to whom or by whom the land was transferred, if that offender had himself submitted the application? Or does the provision mean solely that the established non-compliance is to be attributed to the person submitting the aid application, but that, in the determination of the (level of the) reduction or exclusion, it is still necessary to establish the extent to which there has been negligence, fault or intent on the part of the farmer himself?


(1)  Council Regulation of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).