do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-390/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Füller-Tomlinson v European Parliament (Appeal — Public service — Members of the temporary staff — Social security — Occupational disease — Fixing of the proportion of invalidity attributable to occupational disease — Application of the European Guide for Assessment, for medical purposes, of Physical and Mental Impairments — Distortion of the facts — Reasonable time-limit)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disability insurance, occupational disease, servant (EU)








C_2013026EN.01004002.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/40





Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Füller-Tomlinson v European Parliament
(Case T-390/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public service - Members of the temporary staff - Social security - Occupational disease - Fixing of the proportion of invalidity attributable to occupational disease - Application of the European Guide for Assessment, for medical purposes, of Physical and Mental Impairments - Distortion of the facts - Reasonable time-limit)
2013/C 26/76
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Paulette Füller-Tomlinson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case F-97/08 Füller-Tomlinson v European Parliament [2010] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Paulette Füller-Tomlinson to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in the course of the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6705 — Procter & Gamble/Teva Pharmaceuticals OTC II)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetic product, economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, polishing and scouring preparations








C_2012376EN.01000101.xml










6.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6705 — Procter & Gamble/Teva Pharmaceuticals OTC II)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 376/01
On 9 November 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6705. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-564/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, unfair terms of contract








C_2013038EN.01001402.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti
(Case C-564/12)
2013/C 38/19
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA

Defendant: Guillaume Delmatti

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) interpreted in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (2) prohibit the existence and application of standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that the creditor’s obligations have been fulfilled?










2.


Do the general principle of the effectiveness of Community law and Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude the creditor’s being able to establish proof of fulfilment of its pre-contractual and contractual obligations solely by means of the standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that those obligations have been fulfilled, without producing before the court the documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?






(1)  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 (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

(2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-664/11: Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Limitation of services covered by the Community trade mark application — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013032EN.01001801.xml










2.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/18





Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
(Case T-664/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Limitation of services covered by the Community trade mark application - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 32/28
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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 intervening before the General Court: Royal Mediterranea, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2011 (Case R 1976/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Royal Mediterranea, SA.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, culture, economic support, film production








C_2012376EN.01000601.xml










6.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/6





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
2012/C 376/06
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


4 July 2012




Case number


:


71061




Decision number


:


262/12/COL




EFTA State


:


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Amendments to the support scheme relating to temporary reimbursement in respect of film making




Legal basis


:


Act No 158/2011 amending Act No 43/1999 on temporary reimbursements in respect of film making




Objective


:


Culture




Form of aid


:


Grant




Duration


:


Until 31 December 2016




Economic sectors


:


Audiovisual production




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism




Arnarhvoli




150 Reykjavik




ICELAND








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case C-571/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 6 December 2012 — SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, legal code, simplification of formalities








C_2013038EN.01001502.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 6 December 2012 — SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-571/12)
2013/C 38/21
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


May the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to apply the results of the examination of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to goods included in earlier declarations which were not the subject of the partial examination, but which had been declared with the same Combined Nomenclature code, came from the same manufacturer and which, according to information concerning the name and composition of the goods on that manufacturer’s certificates, were identical to the goods in the declaration in respect of which samples had been taken for partial examination?
In other words:
Does the concept of ‘declaration’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 also include declarations in respect of which samples have not been taken for examination, but in which identical goods have been declared (that is, the goods are declared under the same Combined Nomenclature code, come from the same manufacturer and on the manufacturer’s certificates the same name and composition of goods are given)?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the results of the partial examination of the goods under the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 be applied also to declarations in respect of which, for objective reasons, the declarant is unable to request a further examination under the second subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 since it is not possible to produce the goods for examination pursuant to Article 78(2) of Regulation No 2913/92?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
Case C-572/12: Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, directive (EU), infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, periodic penalty payment, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2013038EN.01001503.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/15





Action brought on 6 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-572/12)
2013/C 38/22
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, E. Manhaeve, A. Tokár, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/81/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive;










—


in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay a daily penalty payment in the sum of EUR 57 324,80 from the date on which judgment is delivered in this case;










—


order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 21 August 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 216, p. 76.