do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-548/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2012 — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, interpretation of the law, offence, restriction on competition








C_2013101EN.01000503.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2012 — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf
(Case C-548/12)
2013/C 101/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and defendant to the counterclaim: Marc Brogsitter

Defendants and counterclaimants: Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a claimant who alleges that he has suffered damage by an anticompetitive act of his contractual partner domiciled in another Contracting State, which is to be regarded in German law as a tortious act, is raising claims against that person based on contract, even in so far as he bases his action on claims relating to tort?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Syria, capital movement, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2012370EN.01000601.xml










30.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/6





Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply
2012/C 370/04
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in Annexes I and II to Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP (1) and in Annexes II and IIa to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 (2), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for by Decision 2012/739/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C — Coordination Unit




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 330, 30.11.2012, p. 21.

(2)  OJ L 330, 30.11.2012, p. 9.
Case T-523/12: Action brought on 30 November 2012 — Rani Refreshments/OHMI — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013032EN.01002301.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/23





Action brought on 30 November 2012 — Rani Refreshments/OHMI — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)
(Case T-523/12)
2013/C 32/36
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Rani Refreshments FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poczesna, Poland)

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 27 September 2012 in case R 236/2012-4; and










—


Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with its application and the decision.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Sani’ in green, willow green and white, for among others, goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9087479

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2587244 of the figurative mark in green, white, black and blue ‘Rani’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 4005211 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘Rani’, for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 2587293 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘RANI FLOAT’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 2587269 of the figurative mark in orange, yellow, black, white, red, pink, blue and green ‘Rani’, for goods in classes 16, 21 and 32; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1239206 of the figurative mark ‘rani’, for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Judgment of the Court of 30 November 2012 in Case E-19/11 — Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State (Free movement of goods — Admissibility — Product coverage — Articles 11 and 16 EEA — State monopolies of a commercial character — Rules concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly — Product selection rules — Refusal to sell alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine — Discrimination between domestic and imported products — Absence of domestic production)
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, alcoholic beverage, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of goods, market approval, monopoly, originating product, stimulant








C_2013075EN.01001501.xml










14.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/15





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 30 November 2012
in Case E-19/11
Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State
(Free movement of goods — Admissibility — Product coverage — Articles 11 and 16 EEA — State monopolies of a commercial character — Rules concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly — Product selection rules — Refusal to sell alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine — Discrimination between domestic and imported products — Absence of domestic production)
2013/C 75/08
In Case E-19/11 Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State — 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 Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on whether Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement preclude a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol from refusing to accept for sale in its retail outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 30 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:






 


It does not contravene Article 16(1) EEA if an EEA State provides in legislation, or through administrative acts, that a body exercising a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol may refuse to accept for sale in its outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine.










 


However, such a selection rule must apply in the same manner to domestic and imported alcoholic beverages containing stimulants. If, as in the present case, there is no domestic production, and the selection rule does not aim to protect domestic production of similar products, it cannot be deemed to place operators or products from other EEA States at a disadvantage.
Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-13/12)
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, animal feedingstuffs, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure








C_2013066EN.01003001.xml










7.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/30





Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-13/12)
2013/C 66/10
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 10 of Part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparations, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement; and










2.


order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland is required under Article 15 of Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 (‘the Directive’), and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, to take the necessary measures in order to implement the Directive, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures taken.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has received no such information from the Icelandic Government, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude that the measures necessary to implement the Directive have been taken.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Directive within the time prescribed.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, Saint Martin, State aid, air transport, competition, consumer protection, control of State aid








C_2012370EN.01000101.xml










30.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 370/01






Date of adoption of the decision


14.6.2012




Reference number of State Aid


SA.34643 (12/N)




Member State


France




Region


Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyane, Réunion, Saint-Martin




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Régime d’aides à caractère social au bénéfice de certaines catégories de personnes ayant leur résidence habituelle dans l'une des collectivités suivantes: la Guadeloupe, la Guyane, la Martinique, Mayotte, la Nouvelle-Calédonie, la Polynésie française, La Réunion, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon et Wallis-et-Futuna




Legal basis


Code général des collectivités territoriales, délibération du Conseil régional de la Guadeloupe no CR/11-530 du 3 mai 2011




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Social support to individual consumers




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Annual budget: EUR 0,9 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


1.4.2012-indefinite




Economic sectors


Air transport




Name and address of the granting authority







SGAE




68 rue de Bellechasse




75700 Paris




FRANCE








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/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012370EN.01000701.xml










30.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/7





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 November 2012
2012/C 370/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2994




JPY


Japanese yen


106,72




DKK


Danish krone


7,4604




GBP


Pound sterling


0,81053




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6371




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2043




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,3500




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,226




HUF


Hungarian forint


279,30




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6962




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0968




RON


Romanian leu


4,5100




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3241




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2432




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2886




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0704




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5763




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5857




KRW


South Korean won


1 407,53




ZAR


South African rand


11,4055




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0917




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5391




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 490,31




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9569




PHP


Philippine peso


53,001




RUB


Russian rouble


40,0600




THB


Thai baht


39,905




BRL


Brazilian real


2,7264




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8116




INR


Indian rupee


71,2400






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-12/12)
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, consumer credit, contract, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure








C_2013066EN.01002901.xml










7.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/29





Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-12/12)
2013/C 66/09
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7h of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement; and










2.


order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland is required, under Article 27 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 (‘the Directive’), and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, to take, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures it has taken in order to implement the Directive.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has received no such information from the Icelandic Government, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude that the measures necessary to implement the Directive have been taken.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Directive within the time prescribed.
Case C-554/12 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 20 September 2012 in Case T-421/09 DEI v European Commission
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, competition, dominant position, electricity supply, interpretation of the law, market, market access, mining extraction, proof








C_2013032EN.01001101.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/11





Appeal brought on 30 November 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 20 September 2012 in Case T-421/09 DEI v European Commission
(Case C-554/12 P)
2013/C 32/15
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Khristoforou and A. Antoniadis, Agents, and A. Ikonomou, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought







—


set aside the General Court’s judgment of 20 September 2012 in Case T-421/09 in its entirety;










—


give final judgment in the matter if it is considered that the state of the proceedings so permits;










—


order DEI to pay its own costs, and the Commission’s costs at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


By its judgment in Case T-421/09, the General Court annulled the decision of 4 August 2009 by which the Commission found that the corrective measures proposed by the Hellenic Republic were necessary and proportionate for removing the consequences of the infringement and ensuring compliance with the previous decision of 5 March 2008 (‘the decision of 4 August 2009’ or ‘the contested decision’). The General Court held that the contested decision had to be annulled, basing its assessment solely on the fact that the Commission’s previous decision of 5 March 2008, upon which the contested decision was exclusively founded, had in the meantime been annulled by its judgment in Case T-169/08, also delivered on 20 September 2012.










2.


Since the Commission considers that the General Court’s judgment in Case T-169/08 is based on many errors of law, on defective and insufficient reasoning and on misinterpretation of the evidence and of the basis of the Commission’s decision of 5 March 2008, it has already also brought an appeal against that judgment of the General Court. Therefore, if that appeal against the judgment in Case T-169/08 is upheld, the sole basis upon which the judgment under appeal in the present case (T-421/09) was founded will also automatically disappear.
Case C-255/11: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern — Germany) — Nadine Büsch, Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, air transport, damage, indemnification, traveller








C_2013063EN.01001502.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/15





Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern — Germany) — Nadine Büsch, Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd
(Case C-255/11) (1)

2013/C 63/26
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
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: 2012-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, State aid, competition, control of State aid, forestry holding, silviculture








C_2012370EN.01000501.xml










30.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/5





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 370/03







Date of adoption of the decision


18.10.2012




Reference number of State Aid


SA.34207 (12/NN)




Member State


Romania




Region


Romania


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Prima împădurire a terenurilor agricole




Legal basis


Programul Național de Dezvoltare Rurală conform Deciziei C(2008) 3831 a Comisiei din 16 iulie 2008 – Măsura 221 din Axa II – „Îmbunătățirea mediului și a spațiului rural”




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Forestry




Form of aid


Other — Forma ajutorului este sub formă de compensare a pierderilor de venit și a cheltuielilor suplimentare asociate primei împăduriri.
Solicitanții vor primi sprijin pentru împădurirea terenurilor agricole, constînd în plăți acordate beneficiarilor pentru:
costuri de înființare a plantației, incluzând costurile pentru materialul de plantare, plantarea în sine și alte costuri legate direct și necesare pentru operațiunea de plantare (primă de înființare);
costurile aferente perioadei de după plantare pentru întreținerea plantațiilor (primă anuală pe ha pentru 5 ani, începând cu anul de plantare);
compensarea pierderii de venit agricol ca urmare a împăduririi (primă anuală pe ha pentru 15 ani, începând cu anul înființării plantației).




Budget








 


Overall budget: RON 1 133 million










 


Annual budget: RON 1 133 million








Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


Until 31.12.2013




Economic sectors


Forestry and logging




Name and address of the granting authority







Direcția Generală Dezvoltare Rurală




Autoritatea de Management pentru PNDR prin Agenția de Plăți pentru Agricultură și Dezvoltare Rurală




Bd. Carol I nr. 24, sector 3




București




ROMÂNIA








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/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm