do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-464/12 P (R): Appeal brought on 15 October 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R, Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disability insurance, indemnification








C_2012379EN.01003201.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/32





Appeal brought on 15 October 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R, Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-464/12 P (R))
2012/C 379/53
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Set aside the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the decision of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 rejecting the application for suspension of the operation of: (i) the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request for payment of the sum of EUR 1 661, unlawfully deducted, in the appellant’s opinion, from his invalidity allowance; (ii) the Commission’s implied decision dismissing the appellant’s complaint; and (iii) any decision on the basis of which the Commission deducted the sum of EUR 1 661 from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of June, July, August and September 2011.
The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.






—


First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, reasons which are manifestly illogical, unreasonable and arbitrary, as well as manifest error of assessment with regard to those reasons, in particular with regard to paragraphs 22 to 28 of the order.










—


Second ground, alleging incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and clear breach of Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, with regard to the order to ‘pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000’.
Reduce CO2. Gain taste : buy regional.
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action
Subjects: environmental education, food consumption, pollution control measures, product quality, reduction of gas emissions

P
-
N
E
-
6
1
1
-
2
1
-
1
3
-
L
M

Reduce CO2.

Gain taste.

Buy regional.

594x841_Poster_Klimaschutz_GB.indd   3

27.09.12   09:51

Climate
Action
Case C-460/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 15 October 2012 — SKP v Ján Bríla
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract








C_2013046EN.01001102.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 15 October 2012 — SKP v Ján Bríla
(Case C-460/12)
2013/C 46/20
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SKP, k.s.

Respondent: Ján Bríla

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in this case, preventing a national court, when adjudicating, on the application of a supplier, on a time-barred claim against a consumer from taking limitation of the action into account of its own motion, even when unfair contract terms are being enforced against the consumer?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the court must, of its own motion, advise the consumer as to his right to argue that the creditor’s claim is time-barred?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29
Case F-116/12: Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Frontex
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, staff assessment








C_2012379EN.01003503.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/35





Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Frontex
(Case F-116/12)
2012/C 379/60
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s staff report and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the applicant’s staff report for 2010;










—


order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order Frontex to pay the costs.
Council Decision 2012/632/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/127/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Eritrea
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Eritrea, international sanctions, military equipment, trade restriction




L_2012282EN.01004601.xml










16.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 282/46








            COUNCIL DECISION 2012/632/CFSP
of 15 October 2012
         
amending Decision 2010/127/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Eritrea


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 1 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/127/CFSP (1).












(2)


On 25 July 2012, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2060 (2012) thereby amending the arms embargo imposed by paragraph 5 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1907 (2009).












(3)


Decision 2010/127/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following paragraph is added to Article 1 of Decision 2010/127/CFSP:

‘4.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to:






(a)


protective clothing including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Eritrea by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel for their personal use only;










(b)


supplies of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, as approved in advance by the Committee established pursuant to UNSCR 751 (1992), the mandate of which was expanded by UNSCR 1844 (2008) (“the Sanctions Committee”).’.







Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Luxembourg, 15 October 2012.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 51, 2.3.2010, p. 19.
Case F-115/12: Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, enforcement of ruling, indemnification








C_2013026EN.01007103.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/71





Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-115/12)
2013/C 26/146
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the claim for compensation for the harm purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s sending a letter concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 4 875 relating to the costs which the Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to pay in Case T-241/03.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the claim of 19 July 2011;










—


annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 19 February 2012 against the decision of 19 July 2011;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the note of 12 June 2012, written in French, bearing the reference at the top of the right side of the first of five pages ‘Ref. Ares(2012)704847 — 13/06/2012’;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 500,00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from 20 July 2011 until the date of actual payment of that sum;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-461/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 15 October 2012 — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, electronic money, interpretation of the law, securities, tax exemption








C_2013009EN.01003003.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/30





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 15 October 2012 — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag
(Case C-461/12)
2013/C 9/51
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Granton Advertising BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

Questions referred







1.


Should the expression ‘other securities’ in Article 13 B(d)[5] of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEG (1) (as of 1 January 2007, Article 135(1)(f) of the Eighth Directive 2006/112/EG, (2) subsequently amended) be interpreted as covering a Granton card, being a transferable card which is used for the (partial) payment for goods and services, and if so, is the issuing and sale of such a card therefore exempt from the levying of turnover tax?










2.


If not, should the expression ‘other negotiable instruments’ in Article 13 B(d)(3), of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEG (as of 1 January 2007, Article 135(1)(d) of the Eighth Directive 2006/112/EG, subsequently amended) be interpreted as covering a Granton card, being a transferable card which is used for the (partial) payment for goods and services, and if so, is the issuing and sale of such a card therefore exempt from the levying of turnover tax?










3.


If a Granton card is an ‘other security’ or ‘other negotiable instrument’ in the aforementioned sense, is it important for the question of whether the issuing and sale thereof is exempt from the levying of turnover tax that, when that card is used, a levy on (a proportionate part of) the fee paid for it is, for all practical purposes, illusory?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-554/11 P: Order of the Court of 15 October 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents — Refusal of full access to documents relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 — Action for annulment — Fresh examination in the course of proceedings — Bringing a separate annulment action)
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative contract, administrative transparency








C_2013009EN.01002301.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/23





Order of the Court of 15 October 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission
(Case C-554/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents - Refusal of full access to documents relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 - Action for annulment - Fresh examination in the course of proceedings - Bringing a separate annulment action)
2013/C 9/37
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, by which the Court ordered that there is no longer any need to give a ruling on the applicant’s form of order seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005, rejecting its request for access to the file relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 — Procedural irregularities before the Court — Failure to deal with Cases T-141/05 RENV and T-36/10 in a coordinated manner — Burden and amount of costs

Operative part







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case T-451/12: Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)
Date: 2012-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013063EN.01001903.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/19





Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)
(Case T-451/12)
2013/C 63/39
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 389/2012-4;










—


Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 389/2012-4 and grant the request for re-establishment of rights, and i) primarily, annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 January 2011 to terminate the revocation proceedings under No 4054 C and order the Cancellation Division to re-open the revocation proceedings under No 4054 C and invite Stromberg Menswear to submit observations to continue the revocation proceedings, or, ii) alternatively, allow Stromberg Menswear to appeal the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 January 2011 to close the revocation proceedings and refer the appeal back to the Board of Appeal; and










—


Order OHIM to pay any and all costs and legal fees incurred by Stromberg Menswear in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘STORMBERG’, for goods and services in class 25 — Community trade mark registration No 2557155

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the cancellation proceedings closed following a surrender of the contested CTM by its proprietor

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the request for restitution in integrum into the time limit for filing the notice of appeal and declared that the appeal was deemed not having been filed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Articles 75 and/or 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.