do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-52/07: Order of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission (Development cooperation — ECHO — EuropeAid — Exclusion of contracts and grants funded by the Community budget and by the EFD — Liquidation and discontinuance of the activity of the humanitarian organisation — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, contract, development aid, humanitarian aid, non-governmental organisation








C_2012184EN.01001203.xml










23.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/12





Order of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission
(Case T-52/07) (1)

(Development cooperation - ECHO - EuropeAid - Exclusion of contracts and grants funded by the Community budget and by the EFD - Liquidation and discontinuance of the activity of the humanitarian organisation - No need to adjudicate)
2012/C 184/22
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vitali, G. Verusio, G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, C. Hermes and F. Moro, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5802 final of 1 December 2006 imposing an administrative penalty on the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, environmental protection, forestry holding, silviculture








C_2012120EN.01000101.xml










25.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)
2012/C 120/01







Date of adoption of the decision


16.3.2012




Reference number of State Aid


SA.33976 (11/N)




Member State


Denmark




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Støtte til offentlig skovrejsning




Legal basis


Lov om skove (LBK. nr. 945 af 24. september 2009)
Det Nationale Skovprogram




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Environmental protection, Forestry




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: DKK 24 (in millions)




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


Until 31.12.2013




Economic sectors


Silviculture and other forestry activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Naturstyrelsen




Haraldsgade 53




2100 København Ø




DANMARK








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6478 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Maxingvest/ML Participações/Paraguaçu Participações/Friele/Ipanema)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coffee, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2012120EN.01000202.xml










25.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6478 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Maxingvest/ML Participações/Paraguaçu Participações/Friele/Ipanema)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 120/03
On 19 March 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 English 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 32012M6478. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment amending Regulation (EC) No 106/2008 on a Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment’ COM(2012) 109 final
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, United States, association agreement (EU), computer equipment, eco-label, office automation, technical specification








C_2012191EN.01014201.xml










29.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/142





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment amending Regulation (EC) No 106/2008 on a Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment’
COM(2012) 109 final
2012/C 191/24
On 26 March 2012 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment amending Regulation (EC) No 106/2008 on a Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment

COM(2012) 109 final.
Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 480th plenary session of 25 and 26 April 2012 (meeting of 25 April), by 144 votes with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 25 April 2012.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON
Case T-183/12: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender








C_2012200EN.01001702.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/17





Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)
(Case T-183/12)
2012/C 200/36
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol).

Form of order sought

By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision dated 16 February 2012 of the European Police Office (Europol) whereby it awarded to the company Capgemini Nederland BV the framework contract in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104;










—


order Europol to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity which the award to them of framework contract would have brought, which they estimate at EUR 161 887, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment; and










—


order Europol to pay the entirety of the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, because Europol altered in the course of the tendering procedure many of the award criteria in relation to the assessment both of the technical and financial offers of the tenderers, blatantly infringing the applicable provisions of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (1) and the Implementing Rules 2342/2002 (2) and settled case-law.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
Case T-168/11: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, legal aid, petition








C_2012250EN.01001502.xml










18.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/15





Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament
(Case T-168/11)
2012/C 250/29
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: AQ (Żary, Poland) (represented by: K. Rosiak, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant’s appointed representative requests the Court to:






—


declare that the applicant’s action is inadmissible and that there is no need to examine it; and to










—


declare that there is no basis on which the applicant can receive compensation in view of the fact that no actual and certain harm was caused by any act or omission of the European Parliament.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his submissions, the applicant’s appointed representative relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law:






—


Unless it is established that the European Parliament’s letter of 7 July 2008 contains a decision of the Petitions Committee relating to an earlier petition of the applicant, the content of which corresponds in full to the content of that petition, it may be assumed that there was, in the present case, satisfaction of the condition relating to breach by the European Parliament of essential procedural requirements (Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament) and that the European Parliament failed to issue an act to the applicant in response to the petition addressed to it;














2.


Second plea in law:






—


In view, however, of the fact that the petition does not concern matters coming within the field of activity of the European Union, the applicant does not have any legal interest in bringing the action;














3.


Third plea in law:






—


furthermore, in view of the fact that the periods for effectively bringing an action under both Article 230 EC (Article 263 TFEU) and Article 232 EC (Article 265 TFEU) had already expired at the time when the applicant applied for legal aid, the action is inadmissible.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6519 — Cremer/L Possehl/Possehl Erzkontor JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, building industry, economic concentration, merger control, mining product, raw material








C_2012120EN.01000201.xml










25.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6519 — Cremer/L Possehl/Possehl Erzkontor JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 120/02
On 23 March 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 English 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 32012M6519. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Judgment of the Court of 25 April 2012 in Case E-13/11 — Granville Establishment v Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt (Jurisdiction agreements — Freedom to provide and receive services — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Justification — Remedies for non-conformity with EEA law)
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, discrimination on the basis of nationality, freedom to provide services, jurisdiction








C_2012369EN.01001201.xml










29.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/12





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 25 April 2012
in Case E-13/11
Granville Establishment v Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt
(Jurisdiction agreements — Freedom to provide and receive services — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Justification — Remedies for non-conformity with EEA law)
2012/C 369/10
In Case E-13/11 Granville Establishment v Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice), Liechtenstein, concerning the interpretation of Articles 4 and 36 of the EEA Agreement with regard to the Liechtenstein Jurisdiction Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 25 April 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:






—


Article 36 EEA precludes a provision of domestic law, such as Section 53a(1) of the Jurisdiction Act, which accords only nationals the right not to be sued abroad on the basis of a jurisdiction agreement unless that jurisdiction agreement has been publicly recorded.










—


It is for the national court, as far as possible, to interpret and apply the relevant provisions of national law in such a way that it is possible duly to remedy the consequences of the breach of EEA law. In that context, it is for the national court to determine whether the provisions of the Jurisdiction Act or any other national provisions can be applied for the purposes of an interpretation in conformity with EEA law.
Case T-329/05: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission (Arbitration clause — Framework agreement between ECHO and humanitarian organisations — Grant agreements — Suspension of payments)
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: ECHO, arbitration clause, association agreement, economic support, framework agreement, humanitarian aid, suspension of payments








C_2012165EN.01001601.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/16





Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission
(Case T-329/05) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Framework agreement between ECHO and humanitarian organisations - Grant agreements - Suspension of payments)
2012/C 165/25
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale (Rome, Italy) (represented by: initally P. Vitali, G. Verusio, G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, subsequently P. Vitali, G. Verusio and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and F. Moro, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Principal claim, under Article 238 EC, for the payment of amounts under grant agreements and, in the alternative, annulment of two letters from the Commission dated 17 June and 27 July 2005.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012120EN.01000301.xml










25.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 April 2012
2012/C 120/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3161




JPY


Japanese yen


106,87




DKK


Danish krone


7,4402




GBP


Pound sterling


0,81540




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8880




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2021




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5565




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,997




HUF


Hungarian forint


297,69




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6993




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2003




RON


Romanian leu


4,3818




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3510




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2775




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3020




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2141




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6170




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6417




KRW


South Korean won


1 500,43




ZAR


South African rand


10,2770




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2979




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5375




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 095,57




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0335




PHP


Philippine peso


56,235




RUB


Russian rouble


38,6550




THB


Thai baht


40,746




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4729




MXN


Mexican peso


17,2850




INR


Indian rupee


69,3260






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-108/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2012 — Oprea v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to the competition — Pre-litigation procedure — Procedural irregularity — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrative procedure, administrator, competition (EU), professional experience








C_2012184EN.01002102.xml










23.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/21





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2012 — Oprea v Commission
(Case F-108/11) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to the competition - Pre-litigation procedure - Procedural irregularity - Manifest inadmissibility)
2012/C 184/44
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant:
Valentin Oprea (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fratini and F. Filpo, lawyers)

Defendant:
European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/198/10 not to admit the applicant to that competition because of an alleged lack of professional experience

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Oprea is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 69.
Case T-326/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB) (Community trade mark — Community word mark BrainLAB — Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the trade mark — Removal of the trade mark from the register on expiry of registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical research, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012165EN.01001901.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/19





Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)
(Case T-326/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Community word mark BrainLAB - Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the trade mark - Removal of the trade mark from the register on expiry of registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 165/32
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1596/2010-4), relating to the application for restitutio in integrum and to the application for the renewal of the registration of the trade mark BrainLAB made by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1596/2010-4);










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case C-193/12: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2012-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, chemical salt, infringement of EU law, pollution from agricultural sources, water pollution, water protection








C_2012217EN.01000603.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/6





Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-193/12)
2012/C 217/12
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Simon and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of and Annex I to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, (1)











—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains that when the defendant carried out a revision of the vulnerable zones in 2007, its designation of those zones was not comprehensive, as it ought to have been under Article 3(1) and (4) of and Annex I to Directive 91/676/EEC.
The Commission complains in particular that the French authorities failed to designate 10 additional vulnerable zones and did not provide any specific information that might justify that omission.


(1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.