do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-230/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Obligation to justify expenditure — Conditions for recognition of producer organisations)
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, Spain, fruit, producer organisation, vegetable








C_2012118EN.01002401.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/24





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-230/10) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Obligation to justify expenditure - Conditions for recognition of producer organisations)
2012/C 118/40
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by M. Muñoz Pérez and A. Rubio González, and subsequently by Rubio González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, Agent)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the fruit and vegetables sector.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
Case T-565/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Highprotect — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metal product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012118EN.01002501.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/25





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)
(Case T-565/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Highprotect - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 118/42
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisbourg, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Decision R 1038/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Highprotect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
Case C-123/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2012 — SC Volksbank România S.A. v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative contract, bank charges, credit, credit institution, interest, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, prices, unfair terms of contract








C_2012151EN.01001901.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2012 — SC Volksbank România S.A. v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu
(Case C-123/12)
2012/C 151/33
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Giurgiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Volksbank România S.A.

Defendant: Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘price’, as referred to in that provision, cover the elements which make up the consideration to which a credit institution is entitled by virtue of a consumer credit agreement, that is to say, the annual percentage rate of charge under a credit agreement, formed in particular by the interest rate, whether fixed or variable, bank commissions, and the other fees included and defined in the agreement?










2.


Can Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as permitting a Member State which has transposed that provision into national law to allow steps to be taken, in the exercise of judicial power, to check whether contractual terms relating to the main subject matter of the contract and the adequacy of the price are unfair?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-167/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Commission v Liotti (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Career Development Report — 2006 appraisal procedure — General Implementing Provisions — Application of the appraisal standards consistently and through consultation)
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment








C_2012118EN.01002301.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/23





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Commission v Liotti
(Case T-167/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Career Development Report - 2006 appraisal procedure - General Implementing Provisions - Application of the appraisal standards consistently and through consultation)
2012/C 118/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-I-0000 and II-A-1-0000 and for that judgment to be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Amerigo Liotti in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
Case F-31/12: Action brought on 6 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, civil servant, transfer of pension rights








C_2012133EN.01003102.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/31





Action brought on 6 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-31/12)
2012/C 133/63
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to transfer pension rights acquired before the applicant’s entry into service at the Commission on the basis of the proposal recalculated by the PMO.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision annulling and replacing the proposals for the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights made in his application under Article 11(2) in Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, which contains a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIPs adopted on 3 March 2011.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-53/06: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Undertaking playing a passive role — Proportionality)
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition, fine, infringement of EU law, plastics, restriction on competition








C_2012118EN.01002102.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/21





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission
(Case T-53/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Undertaking playing a passive role - Proportionality)
2012/C 118/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UPM-Kymmene Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented initially by: B. Amory, E. Friedel and F. Bimont, subsequently by B. Amory, E. Friedel, F. Bimont and F. Amato, and finally by B. Amory, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds UPM-Kymmene Oyj liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, in respect of the period prior to 10 October 1995;










2.


Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(j) of that decision at EUR 50.7 million;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the European Commission and UPM-Kymmene each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012066EN.01002801.xml










6.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/28





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 March 2012
2012/C 66/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3220




JPY


Japanese yen


107,54




DKK


Danish krone


7,4341




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83465




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8382




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2061




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4200




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,780




HUF


Hungarian forint


291,26




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6980




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1260




RON


Romanian leu


4,3503




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3355




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2354




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3129




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2628




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6040




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6608




KRW


South Korean won


1 478,08




ZAR


South African rand


9,9892




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3392




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5645




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 069,54




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9905




PHP


Philippine peso


56,659




RUB


Russian rouble


38,7120




THB


Thai baht


40,506




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2844




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9126




INR


Indian rupee


65,8290






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-119/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 March 2012 — Josef Probst v mr.nexnet GmbH
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, concessionaire, confidentiality, data protection, professional secret








C_2012174EN.01001402.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 March 2012 — Josef Probst v mr.nexnet GmbH
(Case C-119/12)
2012/C 174/21
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Josef Probst

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: mr.nexnet GmbH

Question referred

Does Article 6(2) and (5) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) permit the passing of traffic data from the service provider to the assignee of a claim for payment in respect of telecommunications services in the case where the assignment effected with a view to the collection of transferred debts includes, in addition to the general obligation to respect the privacy of telecommunications and to ensure data protection as provided for under the applicable legislation, the following contractual stipulations:






 


the service provider and the assignee undertake to process and use the protected data only within the framework of their cooperation and exclusively for the purpose of the contract and in the manner prescribed therein;










 


as soon as the information in the protected data is no longer required for such purpose, all protected data held in that connection are to be irreversibly erased or returned;










 


each contracting party is entitled to check that the other party has ensured data protection and data security in accordance with this agreement;










 


confidential documents and information transferred may be made accessible only to such employees as require these for the purposes of performing the contract;










 


the contracting parties are to require those employees to maintain confidentiality in accordance with this agreement;










 


on request, or at the latest on termination of the cooperation between the contracting parties, all confidential data held in that connection are to be irreversibly erased or returned to the other party?






(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).
Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, State aid, common market, control of State aid, large business, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2012067EN.01006401.xml










6.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/64





Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 67/02







Reference number of the State Aid


SA.27553 (X 95/09)




Member State


Hungary




Member State reference number


—




Name of the Region (NUTS)


Észak-Alföld
Article 107(3)(a)




Granting authority







Mátészalka Város Önkormányzat Képvisel?-testülete




4700. Mátészalka H?sök tere 09.




www.mateszalka.hu








Title of the aid measure


Mátészalka – Beruházásfejlesztési Program




National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)


Mátészalka Város Önkormányzat vagyonáról, a vagyontárgyak feletti tulajdonosijogok gyakorlásáról szóló 20/2006. (VIII.19.) rendelet




Type of measure


Scheme




Amendment of an existing aid measure


—




Duration


1.1.2009-31.1.2013




Economic sector(s) concerned


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Type of beneficiary


SME,large enterprise




Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme


HUF 600,00 (in millions)




For guarantees


—




Aid Instrument (Article 5)


Direct grant




Reference to the Commission Decision


—




If co-financed by Community funds


—




Objectives


Maximum aid intensity in % or Maximum aid amount in national currency


SME-bonuses in %




Scheme


50 %


20 %




Web link to the full text of the aid measure:






 


http://www.mateszalka.hu/main.php?f=kiir&oid=18&mid=3










 


http://www.mateszalka.hu/data/mateszalkavarosonkormanyzatvagyonaro(egys12-2010)ujrendelet_20111019-105000.doc
Case T-65/06: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLSmidth v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Joint and several liability)
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition, fine, infringement of EU law, plastics, restriction on competition








C_2012118EN.01002202.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/22





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLSmidth v Commission
(Case T-65/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability)
2012/C 118/36
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FLSmidth & Co. A/S (Valby, Denmark) (represented by: J.-E. Svensson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds FLSmidth & Co. A/S liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, for the period from 31 December 1990 to 31 December 1991;










2.


Sets the amount for payment of which FLSmidth & Co. is held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(f) of Decision C(2005) 4634 at EUR 14.45 million;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the European Commission and FLSmidth & Co. each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
Case T-453/10: Order of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Devolved administration — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EAGGF Guidance Section, European Regional Development Fund, eligibility criteria








C_2012138EN.01001703.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/17






Order of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission
(Case T-453/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Devolved administration - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
(2012/C 138/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Belfast, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Brown, Solicitor, and D. Wyatt QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van den Wyngaert, P. Rossi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6)

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
Case T-64/06: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLS Plast v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Joint and several liability — Principle of ne bis in idem)
Date: 2012-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition, fine, infringement of EU law, plastics, restriction on competition








C_2012118EN.01002201.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/22





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLS Plast v Commission
(Case T-64/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability - Principle of ne bis in idem)
2012/C 118/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FLS Plast A/S (Valby, Denmark) (represented initially by: K. Lasok QC and subsequently by M. Thill-Tayara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds FLS Plast A/S liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, for the period from 31 December 1990 to 31 December 1991;










2.


Sets the amount for payment of which FLS Plast is held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(f) of Decision C(2005) 4634 at EUR 14.45 million;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the European Commission and FLS Plast each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.