do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-200/12: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission
Date: 2012-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, abuse of power, equal treatment, invitation to tender, tendering, tourism








C_2013026EN.01006905.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/69





Order of the General Court of 12 November 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission
(Case T-200/12) (1)

2013/C 26/139
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
Case T-488/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament
Date: 2012-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality








C_2013009EN.01004202.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/42





Action brought on 12 November 2012 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament
(Case T-488/12)
2013/C 9/76
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and Belgo-Metal (Wetteren, Belgium) (represented by: R. Simar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the action for annulment admissible;










—


annul the decision by which the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Infrastructure and Logistics, on 7 September 2012, rejected the applicants’ tender and awarded the contract to another tenderer, a decision about which the applicants were informed by letters of 7 and 18 September 2012;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 89(1) and (2) and 92 of the Financial Regulation, (1) of Article 135(1) and (5) of the Implementing Regulation (2) and Article 49 of Directive 2004/18, (3) and the principles of competition, transparency, equal treatment, proportionality and diligence, in so far as the contested decision does not contain the report compiled by the evaluation committee constituting the reason for the decision, and thus does not allow the applicants to check that the tender accepted is lawful.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state adequate reasons for decisions, of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation, of the contract documents and of the provisions governing the award of that contract, detailed and adequate reasons not being stated for the contested decision in so far as it does not include the information from the evaluation committee’s report.






(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 (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(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 (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)

(3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)
Case T-511/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Fronsac SW and Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)
Date: 2012-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, refrigerated product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013038EN.01002502.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/25





Action brought on 12 November 2012 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Fronsac SW and Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)
(Case T-511/12)
2013/C 38/45
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Refrigue-confecções para o frio, Lda (Pinhal Novo, Portugal) (represented by: C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fronsac SW and Sixty International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 August 2012 in Case R 2353/2010-2, insofar as that decision upheld the opposition to registration of the mark at issue ‘Refrigue for Cold’ for all the contested goods in Classes 18 and 25;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Refrigue for cold’, for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 — Trade mark application No 5 486 725

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fronsac SW and Sixty International SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘RefrigiWear’ and national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘This RefrigiWear’, for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part and application for registration dismissed in part

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-511/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 12 November 2012 — Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP
Date: 2012-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: entrepreneur, financial solvency, guaranteed income, interpretation of the law, pay








C_2013026EN.01003202.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 12 November 2012 — Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP
(Case C-511/12)
2013/C 26/60
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia, António Pereira Teixeira, António Joaquim Moreira David, Joaquim Albino Moreira David

Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP

Question referred

Is European Union law, in the specific context of a guarantee covering wage claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency, in particular Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 80/987/EEC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which guarantees only claims falling due in the six months preceding the initiation of insolvency proceedings against the employer, even where the employees have brought an action against their employer before the Tribunal do Trabalho (Labour Court) with a view to obtaining a judicial determination of the amount outstanding and an enforcement order to recover those sums?


(1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23).