do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-419/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern (Directive 2006/126/EC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal by a Member State to recognise, in favour of a person whose driving licence was withdrawn on its territory, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, mutual recognition principle, recognition of diplomas, residence








C_2012174EN.01000601.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-419/10) (1)

(Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal by a Member State to recognise, in favour of a person whose driving licence was withdrawn on its territory, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)
2012/C 174/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wolfgang Hofmann

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal by a Member State to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is withdrawn in its territory.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second subparagraph, of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126/EC of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing, outside any period of prohibition on applying for a new driving licence imposed on the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and when the condition of normal residence in the territory of the latter has been complied with, to recognise the validity of that driving licence, where the said holder has been subject, in the territory of the first Member State, to a measure withdrawing a previous driving licence.


(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Case C-198/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: USSR, bilateral agreement, equal treatment, gas pipeline, provision of services








C_2012194EN.01001402.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/14





Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-198/12)
2012/C 194/23
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, O. Beynet, and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed its obligations, resulting from Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 (1) in conjunction with Article 16(1) and (2)(b) thereof, to provide maximum capacity to all market participants and, in particular, services for virtual reverse flow gas transport;










—


order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Commission seeks a declaration that the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed its obligations resulting from Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 in conjunction with Article 16(1) and (2)(b) thereof, which replace Article 14(1) and Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005.
Those obligations are the following:






—


The obligations resulting from Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 in conjunction with Article 16(1) and (2)(b) thereof to provide maximum capacity to all market participants and, in particular, services for virtual reverse flow gas transport.
According to the Bulgarian authorities, the reason why the abovementioned obligation to provide maximum capacity was not fulfilled is that there is no physical connection between the transit system and the national gas transport system of the Republic of Bulgaria, and that those systems are subject to different regulations.
A further reason why that obligation was not fulfilled, claim the Bulgarian authorities, is that there are three interstate agreements in force between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Government of the USSR, which were concluded in 1986 and 1989.
The Commission contends that, if the interstate trade agreement of 27 April 1998 between OOO Gazprom and Bulgartransgaz EAD impedes the fulfilment by the Bulgarian authorities of their obligation to provide maximum capacity, the Republic of Bulgaria is required, pursuant to Article 351(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take all appropriate steps to eliminate such incompatibilities with the provisions of European Union law.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36).
Case C-194/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Benidorm (Spain) lodged on 26 April 2012 — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales CARREFOUR SA
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, holiday, labour law, paid leave, sick leave, supermarket








C_2012227EN.01000701.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Benidorm (Spain) lodged on 26 April 2012 — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales CARREFOUR SA
(Case C-194/12)
2012/C 227/11
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Benidorm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Concepción Maestre García

Defendant: Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of the national legislation that does not allow interruption of a leave period, so that, at a later time, the entire period — or what remains of it — can be taken, where a temporary incapacity takes effect before the period in which leave is taken and there are reasons connected with production or organisation which preclude the leave from being taken in another later period?










2.


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of the national legislation that permits an undertaking unilaterally to schedule a leave period which coincides with a period of temporary incapacity, where the worker has not expressed in advance a preference to take another period and where there is an agreement between the representatives of the undertaking’s workers and the undertaking which so permits?










3.


Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of the national legislation that permits payment in lieu of leave not taken as a result of temporary incapacity if there are reasons connected with production or organisation which preclude the leave from actually being taken, even though the employment contract has not been terminated?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6479 — MNV/Rába)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2012121EN.01001802.xml










26.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/18





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6479 — MNV/Rába)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 121/04
On 11 April 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 32012M6479. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), legal profession, translation








C_2012121EN.01003801.xml










26.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/38





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
2012/C 121/10
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AD/232/12 — Head of unit (AD 12) with Bulgarian as his/her main language in the field of legal translation
The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 121 A of 26 April 2012 in Bulgarian only.
Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu
Case C-225/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd (VAT — Directive 2006/112 — Exemptions — Article 151(1)(c) — Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, United States, VAT, armed forces, vessel








C_2012174EN.01001301.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/13





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd
(Case C-225/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112 - Exemptions - Article 151(1)(c) - Supply of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships in the territory of a Member State)
2012/C 174/17
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Able UK Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions relating to certain transactions treated as exports — Dismantling of obsolete US Navy ships carried out on the territory of a Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings, made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty, is exempt from VAT under that provision only where






—


those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and










—


those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.






(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011
Case C-125/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications networks and services — Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/20/EC — Rights of way — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, national implementing measure, telecommunications industry, transmission network








C_2012174EN.01000401.xml










16.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
(Case C-125/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/20/EC - Rights of way - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
2012/C 174/03
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos, A. Nijenhuis and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: K. Lykourgos and A. Pantazi-Lamprou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Infringement of Article 4(1) 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) — Grant and authorisation of rights to install facilities on, over or under public or private property in favour of an undertaking authorised to provide electronic communications networks

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Finds that, by failing to ensure the grant of rights of way on, over or under public property on the basis of transparent procedures, applied without discrimination and without delay, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 4(1) 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), the Republic of Cyprus failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;










2.


Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
Case T-184/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical engineering, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012200EN.01001801.xml










7.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/18





Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)
(Case T-184/12)
2012/C 200/37
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach/Lochhofen, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Springvale, Australia)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2012 in Case R 1956/2010-1;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 35 — application No 7 296 676

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the unregistered word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’, which is protected in Australia, Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom for inter alia heaters

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 75 and the second part of Article 76(1) of that regulation
2012/266/EU: Decision No 1/2012 of the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors of 26 April 2012 on the termination of the term of office of the Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: ACP Committee of Ambassadors
Subjects: Centre for the Development of Enterprise, appointment of members








L_2012131EN.01000901.xml










22.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 131/9








            DECISION No 1/2012 OF THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS
         
of 26 April 2012
         
on the termination of the term of office of the Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE)
(2012/266/EU)


THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS,

Having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2) and as amended for the second time in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (3), and in particular Article 2(6) of Annex III thereof,


Having regard to Decision No 8/2005 of the ACP-EC Committee of Ambassadors of 20 July 2005 on the Statutes and rules of procedure of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE) (4), and in particular Article 7(5) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Mr Jean-Erick ROMAGNE was appointed Director of the CDE with effect from 6 September 2010 by Decision No 3/2010 of the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors (5), without prejudice to any subsequent decisions that the Committee might have to take, under its prerogatives.












(2)


At a special Board meeting held on 27 September 2011, the CDE Executive Board unanimously recommended terminating the services of both the Director and the Deputy Director,





HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:



Article 1
The mandate of Mr Jean-Erick ROMAGNE as Director of the CDE is hereby terminated with effect from 10 August 2012.


Article 2
With immediate effect, the CDE Executive Board is hereby mandated to take the appropriate measures to ensure proper management of the Centre until a new Director has been appointed.




Done at Brussels, 26 April 2012.


For the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors


The Chairperson

Shirley SKERRITT-ANDREW
            





(1)  
            OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

(2)  Agreement amending the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 27).

(3)  Agreement amending for the second time the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (OJ L 287, 4.11.2010, p. 3).

(4)  
            OJ L 66, 8.3.2006, p. 16.

(5)  
            OJ L 145, 11.6.2010, p. 17.
2012/258/EU: Decision of the European Central Bank of 26 April 2012 amending Decision ECB/2010/22 on the quality accreditation procedure for manufacturers of euro banknotes (ECB/2012/7)
Date: 2012-04-26
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: decision-making body (EU), euro, paper money, quality standard




L_2012126EN.01001301.xml










15.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 126/13








            DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
         
of 26 April 2012
         
amending Decision ECB/2010/22 on the quality accreditation procedure for manufacturers of euro banknotes
(ECB/2012/7)
(2012/258/EU)


THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(1) thereof,


Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 16 thereof,


Having regard to Decision ECB/2010/22 of 25 November 2010 on the quality accreditation procedure for manufacturers of euro banknotes (1), and in particular Article 2(4) and Articles 7 and 10 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Executive Board’s competence to decide on accreditations under Article 2(4) of Decision ECB/2010/22 is delegated to it by the Governing Council in accordance with Article 12.1, second paragraph of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank.












(2)


The procedure for granting, renewing and extending quality accreditation laid down in Decision ECB/2010/22 should be amended to allow for faster processing of quality accreditation requests, thereby ensuring the timely grant, renewal or extension of accreditation, and to alleviate the administrative burden on the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB).












(3)


To this end, it should be made possible for the Executive Board to sub-delegate the competence to take decisions relating to routine accreditation to one or more of its members. The sub-delegation will, however, not cover the competence to grant exemptions, reject accreditation requests, suspend or revoke accreditations.












(4)


Decision ECB/2010/22 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

Amendment

Article 2(4) of Decision ECB/2010/22 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   The Executive Board shall be competent to take all decisions relating to a manufacturer’s quality accreditation, taking into account the views of the Banknote Committee, and shall inform the Governing Council thereof. The Executive Board may decide to sub-delegate the powers to grant, renew or extend such accreditation pursuant to Article 3(4), and Article 4(3) and Articles 7 and 10, to one or more of its members.’.



Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Frankfurt am Main, 26 April 2012.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 330, 15.12.2010, p. 14.