do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-524/12: Action brought on 3 December 2012 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2013032EN.01002302.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/23





Action brought on 3 December 2012 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)
(Case T-524/12)
2013/C 32/37
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certino Mode, SL (Elche, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Alter the contested decision so that the appeal brought by the intervener is rejected and CTM No 734343 ‘RECARO’ is revoked in its entirety;










—


In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 1761/2011-1; and










—


Order OHIM and, as the case may be, the intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the appeal procedure before OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘RECARO’, for goods in classes 10 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 734343

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: Revoked the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 15 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 76(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and










—


Infringement of Article 75(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
Council Decision of 3 December 2012 appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cedefop, Sweden, appointment of members, board of directors








C_2012380EN.01000501.xml










11.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/5





COUNCIL DECISION
of 3 December 2012
appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
2012/C 380/02
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),
Having regard to the nomination submitted to the Council by the Commission in the category of employers' representatives,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 16 July 2012 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2012 to 17 September 2015.










(2)


A member's seat on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of employers' representatives has become vacant as a result of the resignation of Ms Karin THAPPER,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The following person is hereby appointed as a member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 17 September 2015:

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS ORGANISATIONS:







SWEDEN


Mr Tobias ERIKSSON
Association of Swedish Engineering Industries





Done at Brussels, 3 December 2012.


For the Council


The President

N. SYLIKIOTIS




(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 228, 31.7.2012, p. 3.
Case T-468/09: Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure v ECB
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: architecture, award of contract, building, indemnification, invitation to tender








C_2013026EN.01006802.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/68





Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure v ECB
(Case T-468/09) (1)

2013/C 26/134
Language of the case: German
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
Case C-556/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 3 December 2012 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, directive (EU), information user, price control, real property, telecommunications equipment, transmission network








C_2013038EN.01001301.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 3 December 2012 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet
(Case C-556/12)
2013/C 38/16
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TDC A/S

Defendant: Teleklagenævnet

Questions referred







1.


Does the definition of ‘access’ in Article 2(a) of the Access Directive (1) cover access in the form of the installation of drop cables between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at the end-user’s premises? Does it make a difference in answering the question that the maximum length of such drop cables is 30 metres?










2.


Is the installation of a drop cable over a distance of up to 30 metres between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at the end user’s premises covered by the phrase ‘access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities’ in Article 12 of the Access Directive, ref. Article 2 and Article 8?










3.


Is it relevant for the answer to question 1 and question 2, where the access obligation takes the form of a requirement, for example, to install drop cables between the distribution point in an access network and the terminating segment at an end-user’s premises, that the owner of an electronic communications network must undertake investment which considerably exceeds the acquisition cost of the electronic communications network to which access must be provided?










4.


Is it relevant for the answer to question 3 that the owner is able to recover the costs of installing the drop cables through an imposed price control obligation?






(1)  Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7)
Case C-557/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 December 2012 — KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, cartel, indemnification, interpretation of the law, market prices, price agreement, price increase








C_2013071EN.01000502.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 December 2012 — KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
(Case C-557/12)
2013/C 71/09
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

Respondent: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Question referred

Is Article 101 TFEU (Article 81 EC, Article 85 of the EC Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that any person may claim from members of a cartel damages also for the loss which he has been caused by a person not party to the cartel who, benefiting from the protection of the increased market prices, raises his own prices for his products more than he would have done without the cartel (umbrella pricing), so that the principle of effectiveness laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union requires grant of a claim under national law?
Case F-147/12: Action brought on 3 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, transfer of pension rights








C_2013055EN.01002601.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/26





Action brought on 3 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-147/12)
2013/C 55/44
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights acquired before he entered the service, under the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and, so far as necessary, the decision confirming that transfer

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Declare illegal Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


Annul the decision of 3 February 2012 to apply the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 in respect of the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights;










—


So far as necessary, annul the decision of 11 October 2012 confirming that transfer;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Nasrin Sotoudeh - Jafar Panahi : Sakharov prize for freedom of thought 2012.
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, cultural prize, dissidence, human rights, political prisoner

EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT.
TAKING 
A STAND FOR 
HUMANITY.

NASRIN SOTOUDEH 
JAFAR PANAHI
SAKHAROV PRIZE
FOR FREEDOM 
OF THOUGHT 2012

a4.indd   1

10/12/12   11:10

a4.indd   2

10/12/12   11:10

a4.indd   3

10/12/12   11:10

J
-
N
E
-
0
8
4
-
2
1
-
2
3
-
D
B
N
E

www.europarl.europa.eu/sakharov

a4.indd   4

10/12/12   11:10
Case F-45/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — BT v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Non-renewal of the contract — Insufficient grounds stated for the action — Action manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: contract, servant (EU)








C_2013046EN.01003201.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/32





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — BT v Commission
(Case F-45/12) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Non-renewal of the contract - Insufficient grounds stated for the action - Action manifestly inadmissible)
2013/C 46/63
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BT (Bucharest, Romania)) (represented by: N. Visan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


BT must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012, p. 21.
Case F-80/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 — de Bruin v EIT
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, consultancy, reassignment








C_2013046EN.01003306.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/33





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 — de Bruin v EIT
(Case F-80/12) (1)

2013/C 46/72
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.12, p. 18.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 3 December 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(2) — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes — Rapporteur: France
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: cartel, computer, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, fine, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, television, unlawful agreement








C_2013303EN.01000601.xml










19.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/6





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 3 December 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(2) — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes
Rapporteur: France
2013/C 303/05






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the specific increases of the basic amounts of the fines so as to ensure a sufficiently deterrent effect.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances applicable in this case.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reductions of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.










7.


The Advisory Committee agree with the Commission's assessment of the inability to pay request.










8.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.










9.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-550/12 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2012 by J against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, indemnification, infringement of EU law, intellectual property, ownership








C_2013032EN.01000901.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/9





Appeal brought on 3 December 2012 by J against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament

(Case C-550/12 P)
2013/C 32/12
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: J (represented by: A. Auer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 and declare that ‘The judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament is set aside in its entirety. The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs’.




If the appeal is deemed to be founded, the appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


grant in full the application made at first instance for the annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 rejecting petition No 1673/2009 submitted by the appellant on 19 November 2009;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs incurred at first instance;
in the alterative,










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision to be taken.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court wrongly found there to have been no infringement of the duty to state reasons on the part of the Committee on Petitions in its declaration of inadmissibility of the appellant’s petition. The appellant submits that, in its petition, it complained expressly of the infringement of the right to property and an infringement of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) by the Austrian authorities. Those infringements were not addressed in the declaration of inadmissibility of the petition — even though they were referred to expressly — with the result that it was not possible for the appellant to understand why the European Parliament deemed its petition to be inadmissible.
Moreover, the General Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the conduct of the Austrian authorities was in no way linked to the implementation of European Union law. The Austrian authorities confiscated documents belonging to the appellant which are protected by copyright, without being provided with any compensation. As a result, the appellant’s right to (intellectual) property within the scope of Directive 2004/48/EC was infringed.


(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45). Corrigenda thereto: OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16 and OJ 2007 L 204, p. 27.
Case T-464/12 P (R): Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision — Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance)
Date: 2012-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: deduction at source, enforcement of ruling, indemnification








C_2013038EN.01002501.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/25





Order of the General Court of 3 December 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-464/12 P (R)) (1)

(Appeal - Order made at first instance in interim proceedings rejecting an application for suspension of operation of the contested decision - Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of sums which he claims were unjustly deducted from his allowance)
2013/C 38/44
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Re:

Appeal seeking the setting aside of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.