do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-447/12: Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Visa Europe v Commission
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: credit, credit purchase, electronic money, tax








C_2012379EN.01002602.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/26





Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Visa Europe v Commission
(Case T-447/12)
2012/C 379/46
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Visa Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renshaw and J. Aitken, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 31 July 2012 given in Case COMP/D1/39398 — Visa MIF, insofar as it rejects Visa Europe’s request to modify the debit multilateral interchange fee (MIF) cap made legally binding by the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2010; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that






—


the Commission breached Art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Visa Europe’s rights of defence and the principle of sound administration by not providing Visa Europe with the opportunity to effectively make known its views on the relevant facts and on the Commission’s objections regarding the alleged shortcomings in the economic study submitted by Visa Europe before definitively rejecting Visa Europe’s request to modify the MIF cap.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that






—


the Commission breached Art. 9(2)(a) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), the principle of sound administration and Art. 296 TFEU by not comparing the economic study submitted by Visa Europe with the studies previously used to calculate the MIF cap and by relying on irrelevant considerations when rejecting Visa Europe’s request to modify the MIF cap.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that






—


the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment. It rejected evidence submitted by Visa Europe on the basis of flawed considerations, as well as on the basis of objections inconsistent with the Commission’s own precedents. Furthermore, the Commission failed to appreciate that its objections, even if they were correct, would nevertheless fail to justify the refusal to modify the MIF cap.










(1)  Council Regulation No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102] of the [TFEU] (OJ L 1, p. 1)
Case T-448/12: Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Davril v Council and Commission
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: agricultural product, farmer, marketing restriction








C_2012379EN.01002701.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/27





Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Davril v Council and Commission
(Case T-448/12)
2012/C 379/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philippe Davril (Épargnes, France) (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Award full compensation for the damage sustained by virtue of the monetary penalties imposed, that is to say, the sum of EUR 174 900;










—


Award full compensation of the non-material damage sustained by him, that is to say, the sum of EUR 100 000;










—


Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied upon in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
 (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)



(1)  OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

(2)  OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.
Commission Delegated Directive 2012/50/EU of 10 October 2012 amending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for applications containing lead  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, electronic waste, environmental standard, hazardous waste, lead, marketing standard, waste recycling




L_2012348EN.01001601.xml










18.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 348/16








            COMMISSION DELEGATED DIRECTIVE 2012/50/EU
of 10 October 2012
         
amending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for applications containing lead
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (1), and in particular Article 5(1)(a) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Directive 2011/65/EU prohibits the use of lead in electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market.












(2)


The substitution of lead in PZT based dielectric ceramic materials for capacitors which are part of integrated circuits or discrete semiconductors is still technically impracticable. The use of lead in those materials should therefore be exempted from the prohibition.












(3)


Directive 2011/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:



Article 1
Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU is amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.


Article 2

1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 2 January 2013 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.


2.   Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.



Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 10 October 2012.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 88.




ANNEX
In Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU the following point 7(c)-IV is inserted:








‘7(c)-IV


Lead in PZT based dielectric ceramic materials for capacitors which are part of integrated circuits or discrete semiconductors


Expires on 21 July 2016’
Digital agenda for Europe scoreboard 2012.
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Subjects: digital divide, digital technology, information technology, new technology, technological change, telecommunications

Digital Agenda for Europe 

Scoreboard 2012

K
K
-
A
H
-
1
2
-
0
0
1
-
E
N
-
N

doi: 10.2759/83934

Digital Agenda for Europe 
Scoreboard 2012

Communication 
Networks, Content 
and Technology

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology (CONNECT)

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda

How to obtain EU publications

Free publications:
•   via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•   at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the 

Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:
•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports 
of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
•   via  one  of  the  sales  agents  of  the  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union  (http://publications.

europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
Case C-497/11 P: Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — ERDF — Reduction in financing — Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece — Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties — Professional secrecy — Rate of financial correction — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review)
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Greece, financial aid, operational programme, professional secret, road transport, transport infrastructure








C_2013101EN.01000301.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/3





Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
(Case C-497/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - ERDF - Reduction in financing - Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece - Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties - Professional secrecy - Rate of financial correction - Discretion of the Commission - Judicial review)
2013/C 101/04
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents, and G. Michailopoulos, dikigóros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2001 in Case T-81/09 Greece v Commission, by which the General Court annulled in part an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) initially granted in respect of the Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Case T-158/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF — Negligence of the Member State in the recovery of sums wrongly paid — Liability of the Member State for the financial consequences of failure to recover)
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, Greece, validation of expenditure








C_2012366EN.01002902.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/29





Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-158/09) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF - Negligence of the Member State in the recovery of sums wrongly paid - Liability of the Member State for the financial consequences of failure to recover)
2012/C 366/55
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, S. Papaïoannou and V. Karra, agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and E. Tserepa-Lacombe, agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment or variation of Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), ‘Guarantee’ Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as that decision excludes from Community funding, and imposes on the Hellenic Republic liability for, a sum of EUR 13 348 979,02

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) ‘Guarantee’ Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as it closes the files EL/1993/01 and EL/1994/031 and in that regard imposes on the Hellenic Republic liability for the sums of EUR 519 907 and EUR 300 914,99;










2.


Dismisses the action for the remainder;










3.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the European Commission.










4.


orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its costs and one fifth of the costs of the Hellenic Republic.






(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
Case C-611/11 P: Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — ara AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allrounder SARL (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs — Earlier national word mark A — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013101EN.01000401.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/4





Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — ara AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allrounder SARL
(Case C-611/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs - Earlier national word mark A - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)
2013/C 101/07
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: ara AG (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Allrounder SARL (represented by: N. Boespflug, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 in Case T-174/10 ara v OHIM — Allrounder (A with two triangular motifs), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara and Allrounder — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs — Opposition by the holder of the national word mark ‘A’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Incorrect assessment of the distinctive character

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders ara AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.
Case C-456/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 10 October 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and O; other party: B
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, family migration, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, residence permit, return migration








C_2013026EN.01001901.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 10 October 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and O; other party: B
(Case C-456/12)
2013/C 26/33
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and O

Other party: B

Questions referred

[…]






1.


Should Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, as regards the conditions governing the right of residence of members of the family of a Union citizen who have third-country nationality, be applied by analogy, as in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-370/90 Surinder Singh
 (2) and in Case C-291/05 Eind, (3) where a Union citizen returns to the Member State of which he is a national after having resided in another Member State in the context of Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and as the recipient of services within the meaning of Article 56 of that Treaty?










2.


If so, is there a requirement that the residence of the Union citizen in another Member State must have been of a certain minimum duration if, after the return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national, the member of his family who is a third-country national wishes to gain a right of residence in that Member State?










3.


If so, can that requirement then also be met if there was no question of continuous residence, but rather of a certain frequency of residence, such as during weekly residence at weekends or during regular visits?
[…]










4.


As a result of the time which elapsed between the return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national and the arrival of the family member from a third country in that Member State, in circumstances such as those of the present case, has there been a lapse of possible entitlement of the family member with third-country nationality to a right of residence derived from Union law?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

(2)  Judgment of 7 July 1992, [1992] ECR I-4265.

(3)  Judgment of 11 December 2007, [2007] ECR I-10719.
Case C-31/12: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, disclosure of information, game of chance, interpretation of the law, technical rule








C_2013101EN.01000502.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/5





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak
(Case C-31/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
2013/C 101/10
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem

Criminal proceedings against

Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Interpretation of the concept of ‘technical regulation’ in Article 1.11 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18) — Obligation on the part of a Member State to communicate to the Commission all draft technical regulations — Law of a Member State concerning games of chance

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), by decision of 13 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Case T-569/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility)
Date: 2012-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bread, confectionery product, pastry-making, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012366EN.01003202.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/32





Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)
(Case T-569/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for alteration - Admissibility)
2012/C 366/62
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bimbo SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panrico SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;










3.


Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.