do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-23/12: Action brought on 17 January 2012 — MAF v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, infringement of EU law, official language, public consultation








C_2012098EN.01002202.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/22





Action brought on 17 January 2012 — MAF v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
(Case T-23/12)
2012/C 98/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mutuelle des Architectes Français assurances (MAF) (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions to publish on the Authority’s website all the information solely in English, including the public consultations launched on 7 and 8 November 2011 and 21 December 2011;










—


to the extent necessary, annul the Authority’s decision of 16 January 2012;










—


order the Authority to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 8(1)(k) and 73 of Regulation No 1094/2010 (1) in that those provisions require the defendant to publish on its website information relating to its activities in all the official languages of the European Union (EU). The applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment and an error of law in so far as the defendant justifies the refusal to publish the public consultations at issue in the applicant’s language, in particular on grounds of cost, whereas it is stated in Article 73(3) of Regulation No 1094/2010 that the translation services required for the functioning of the Authority are to be provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, concerning the scope of the obligation to publish in the official languages of the European Union. The applicant submits that that obligation applies equally to the public consultations launched by the defendant and not only to the defendant’s annual report, work programme and guidelines and recommendations.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 48).
Case C-25/12 P: Appeal on 17 January 2012 by Gino Trevisanato against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Gino Trevisanato v European Commission
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, collective dismissal, national implementing measure








C_2012065EN.01001002.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/10





Appeal on 17 January 2012 by Gino Trevisanato against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Gino Trevisanato v European Commission
(Case C-25/12 P)
2012/C 65/20
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought







—


Annul the order of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11, declaring the admissibility and the jurisdiction of the General Court to rule on the applications in the action for failure to take action, brought by the applicant on 29 September 2011 against the European Commission, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 265 TFEU;










—


Consequently, rule on the merits of the action with costs awarded to the successful party, or, in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant makes three pleas in law in support of his appeal.
The applicant maintains that the order is vitiated by factual error through misinterpretation of the applicant’s claim. He had not asked the Court to find an unlawful refusal by the Commission to take a position, by means of a reasoned opinion within the meaning of Article 258 TFEU, on the inadequate transposition into the Italian legal order of Directive 98/59/EC (1) on collective redundancies, as the order presupposes. He had, on the contrary, requested the Court to hold that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act by not notifying to the applicant the legally binding position on the request which, 4 years after the complaint, was raised again with the request of 11 July 2011 with regard to the right or otherwise of employees in Italy to enjoy the protection of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies, that right having been denied by the Italian courts to the applicant, who had been the victim of a redundancy of that type, carried out by IBM in Italy.
The General Court then erred by declaring that it had no jurisdiction, on the basis of the Order of the Court of Justice of 26 October 1995 in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P Pevasa and Inpesca. That case-law was not relevant in that case on account of the different factual background.
Finally, the General Court infringed its Rules of Procedure and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by omitting to notify the action to the opposing party, publish a summary in the Official Journal and refer the matter to the Advocate General.


(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6402 — REWE/SAG/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy supply, food industry, merger control, telecommunications industry, vehicle rental








C_2012014EN.01000101.xml










17.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6402 — REWE/SAG/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 14/01
On 4 January 2012, 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 German 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 32012M6402. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-22/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Katarína Hassová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2012098EN.01001401.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Katarína Hassová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová
(Case C-22/12)
2012/C 98/22
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Katarína Hassová

Defendants: Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, (1) in combination with Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EC, (2) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law (such as § 4 of Law No 381/2001 on compulsory contractual insurance against liability for damage caused by the use of a motor vehicle, or § 6 of Law No 168/1999 [of the Czech Republic] on the same subject) according to which civil liability arising from the use of a motor vehicle does not cover non-material damage, expressed in financial form, caused to the survivors of the victims of a road accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle?










2.


If the answer to the first question is that the above-mentioned rule of national law does not conflict with Community law, must the provisions of § 4(1), (2) and (4) of the said Law No 381/2001 and § 6 of the said Law No 168/1999 [of the Czech Republic] be interpreted as not precluding the national court, in conformity with Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/232/EEC. in combination with Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EEC, from allowing a claim for non-material damage caused to the survivors of the victims of a road accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle, in the capacity of injured parties and in financial form?






(1)  OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33.

(2)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1.
Call for proposals under the Implementation Plan of Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, fuel cell, hydrogen, invitation to tender, joint venture








C_2012014EN.01000301.xml










17.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/3





Call for proposals under the Implementation Plan of Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
2012/C 14/04
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the Annual Implementation Plan 2012 of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU).
Proposals are invited for the following call: FCH-JU-2012-1

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/fp7_calls
Call for proposals under the Euratom Framework Programme for Nuclear Research and Training Activities (2012-2013)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, invitation to tender, nuclear research, nuclear safety








C_2012014EN.01000401.xml










17.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/4





Call for proposals under the Euratom Framework Programme for Nuclear Research and Training Activities (2012-2013)
2012/C 14/05
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for Nuclear Research and Training Activities (2012-2013).
Proposals are invited for the following call. The call deadline and budget are given in the call text, which is published on the participant portal website.

Euratom work programme







Call title


Nuclear Fission, Safety and Radiation Protection




Call identifier


FP7-Fission-2012





This call for proposals relates to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2012) 7 of 10 January 2012.

Information on the modalities of the call, the work programme, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the participant portal website:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/fp7_calls
Case T-135/07: Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 January 2012 — Italy v Commission (Health policy — Avian influenza — Italian market in poultrymeat — Request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the market — Commission decision rejecting that request)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, avian influenza, common organisation of markets, domestic market, health control, market protection, poultry, poultrymeat








C_2012058EN.01000701.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/7





Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 January 2012 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-135/07) (1)

(Health policy - Avian influenza - Italian market in poultrymeat - Request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the market - Commission decision rejecting that request)
2012/C 58/10
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aieelo, G. Palmieri, lawyers, and by M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 7 February 2007 rejecting the request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the Commission’s decision of 7 February 2007 rejecting the request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
Case C-23/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Mohamad Zakaria
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, frontier, legal action, removal








C_2012080EN.01001203.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Mohamad Zakaria
(Case C-23/12)
2012/C 80/18
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts/Latvia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mohamad Zakaria

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) provide persons with a right of appeal not only against a decision refusing entry into a country, but also against infringements committed in the procedure leading to the adoption of a decision authorising entry?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in the light of recital 20 in the preamble to, and Article 6(1) of, Regulation No 562/2006, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does Article 13(3) of Regulation No 562/2006 require the Member States to guarantee an effective remedy before a court of law?










3.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2 in the negative, in the light of recital 20 in the preamble to, and Article 6(1) of, Regulation No 562/2006, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does Article 13(3) of Regulation No 562/2006 require the Member States to guarantee an effective remedy before an administrative body which, from an institutional and functional perspective, provides the same guarantees as a court of law?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1.
Case T-436/11: Order of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Afriqiyah Airways v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, rights of the defence








C_2012089EN.01002403.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/24





Order of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Afriqiyah Airways v Council
(Case T-436/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 89/41
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Afriqiyah Airways (Tripoli, Libya) (represented by: B. Sarfati, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/300/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 85) in so far as it concerns the applicant

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012014EN.01000201.xml










17.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 January 2012
2012/C 14/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2669




JPY


Japanese yen


97,25




DKK


Danish krone


7,4349




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82745




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8748




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2093




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6705




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,595




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,75




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6997




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3927




RON


Romanian leu


4,3140




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3482




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2289




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2929




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,8422




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5982




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6349




KRW


South Korean won


1 459,69




ZAR


South African rand


10,2512




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0024




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5513




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 655,62




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9774




PHP


Philippine peso


55,510




RUB


Russian rouble


40,2140




THB


Thai baht


40,401




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2599




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1633




INR


Indian rupee


65,1500






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6400 — ECE/METRO/MEC JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: business management, economic concentration, merger control, real estate business








C_2012014EN.01000102.xml










17.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6400 — ECE/METRO/MEC JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 14/02
On 26 October 2011, 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 German 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 32011M6400. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-522/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hell Energy Magyarország v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark HELL — Earlier Community word mark HELLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012058EN.01000901.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/9





Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hell Energy Magyarország v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)
(Case T-522/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark HELL - Earlier Community word mark HELLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 58/15
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH (Rellingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, E. Nicolás Gómez and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1517/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH and Hell Energy Magyarország.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hell Energy Magyarország kft to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Case T-513/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Atrium — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wood industry








C_2012058EN.01000802.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/8





Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium)
(Case T-513/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Atrium - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 58/14
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hamberger Industriewerke GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially S. Schäffner and R. Manea and subsequently G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 August 2010 (Case R 291/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Atrium as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Hamberger Industriewerke GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.