do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, company with share capital, control of State aid, municipality








C_2012376EN.01000301.xml










6.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/3





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
2012/C 376/03
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


27 June 2012




Case number


:


68532




Decision number


:


245/12/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Name and address of the grating authority


:







Andøy Municipality




8480 Andenes




NORWAY








Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Sale of shares in A.H. Holding AS from the municipality to the other shareholders of the company




Form of aid


:


n.a.




Budget


:


Sales price of NOK 7,1 million (2010)




Duration


:


n.a.




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/
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, airport, control of State aid, public service








C_2012376EN.01000501.xml










6.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 376/5





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
2012/C 376/05
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


4 July 2012




Case number


:


65139




Decision number


:


260/12/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Skien Airport




Legal basis


:


Articles 61(1) and 59(2) of the EEA Agreement




Type of measure


:


No aid/public service obligation (no objections)/case closure




Form of aid


:


Grant/soft loan




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Municipality of Skien




Postbox 158




3701 Skien




NORWAY








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-682/11 P: Order of the Court of 6 December 2012 — GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 — Authentication of euro coins — Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation — Article 8(2) — Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person directly concerned)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: counterfeiting, euro, issuing of currency








C_2013108EN.01000701.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/7





Order of the Court of 6 December 2012 — GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
(Case C-682/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 - Authentication of euro coins - Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation - Article 8(2) - Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person directly concerned)
2013/C 108/12
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Neergaard, agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and M. Simm, agents)

Re:

Appeal against order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS v Parliament and Council, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1) — Acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons — Condition of direct concern

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
Case C-573/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 6 December 2012 — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, certificate of origin, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy production, import restriction, interpretation of the law, renewable energy








C_2013038EN.01001601.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 6 December 2012 — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten
(Case C-573/12)
2013/C 38/23
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ålands Vindkraft AB

Defendant: Energimyndigheten

Questions referred







1.


The Swedish electricity certificate system is a national support scheme which requires electricity suppliers and certain electricity users in the Member State to purchase an electricity certificate, corresponding to a certain share of their sales or use, without there being a specific requirement also to purchase electricity from the same source. The electricity certificate is issued by the Swedish State and is proof that a certain amount of renewable electricity has been produced. The producers of electricity obtained from renewable sources receive, by the sale of the electricity certificate, extra revenue as an additional income from its production of electricity. Are Article (2(k)) and Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that they permit a Member State to apply a national support scheme as above, in which only producers situated in the territory of that country can participate and which has the result that those producers have an economic advantage over producers who cannot be issued with an electricity certificate?










2.


Can a system such as that described in question 1 — in the light of Article 34 (TFEU) — be regarded as constituting a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect?










3.


If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, can such a system be compatible with Article 34 (TFEU) as regards the objective of promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources?










4.


How is the consideration of the above questions affected by the fact that the restriction of the support scheme to include only national producers is not expressly governed in national law?






(1)  OJ L 140, p. 16.
Case C-578/12 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-39/10: El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Spain, clothing industry, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013046EN.01001601.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/16





Appeal brought on 6 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-39/10: El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-578/12 P)
2013/C 46/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, abogada, J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the judgment of the General Court of 27th September, 2012 in case T-39/10 in its entirety.










—


Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA.










—


Order Emilio Pucci International BV to pay the costs incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that there exists likelihood of confusion (article 8.1.b CTMR (1)) between the earlier trademarks ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ and ‘E. TUCCI’ and the contested CTM application ‘PUCCI’, in respect of all the designated products in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 28, as it has proved genuine use of all its Spanish trademarks and there is one trademark (community trademark application No. 3679528) which is not subject to this obligation, and the signs in controversy are confusingly similar. In addition, the conditions for the application of Article 8(5) CTMR 2009 are also fulfilled in the present case, as the earlier registrations enjoy a reputation in Spain in respect of articles related to fashion and the use of a similar sign by a third party would be detrimental to, and take unfair advantage of, such reputation.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
OJ L 78, p. 1
Joined Cases C-124/11, C-125/11 and C-143/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Robert Klinke (C-125/11) and Jörg-Detlef Müller v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11) (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — National rules — Assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 3 — Scope — Concept of ‘pay’ )
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU employment policy, State aid, application of EU law, cohabitation, equal treatment, illness, interpretation of the law, national law, remuneration of work, rights of civil servants








C_2013026EN.01000501.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Robert Klinke (C-125/11) and Jörg-Detlef Müller v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11)
(Joined Cases C-124/11, C-125/11 and C-143/11) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - National rules - Assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 3 - Scope - Concept of ‘pay’)
2013/C 26/08
Language of the cases: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-124/11 and C-125/11), Jörg-Detlef Müller (C-143/11)

Defendants: Karen Dittrich (C-124/11), Robert Klinke (C-125/11), Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-143/11)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for assistance paid to public servants in case of illness excluding life partners from the members of the family who can be covered by the assistance in question — Equal treatment of workers in a registered partnership and married workers — Scope of Directive 2000/78/EC — Concept of remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) and 3(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that assistance granted to public servants in the event of illness, such as that granted to public servants of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland under the Law on federal public servants (Bundesbeamtengesetz), falls within the scope of that directive if it is the responsibility of the State, as a public employer, to finance it, this being a matter for the national court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 269, 10.09.2011.
Corrigendum to Decision 2011/181/EU of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 15 October 2010 on the signature and provisional application of the Euro Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part ( OJ L 79, 25.3.2011 )
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union, Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: Jordan, agreement (EU), air safety, air traffic, air traffic control, signature of an agreement








L_2012334EN.01005101.xml










6.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 334/51







Corrigendum to Decision 2011/181/EU of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 15 October 2010 on the signature and provisional application of the Euro Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 79 of 25 March 2011
)

The publication of Decision 2011/181/EU is to be considered null and void.
Case T-531/12: Action brought on 6 December 2012 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013046EN.01001803.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/18





Action brought on 6 December 2012 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)
(Case T-531/12)
2013/C 46/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tifosi Optics, Inc. (Watkinsville, United States) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 729/2011-2, in its entirety; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8543183

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1368232 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9, 18 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 2747996 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 28

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-430/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rovigo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Md Sagor (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — National legislation providing for a fine which may be replaced by an order for expulsion or home detention)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, arrest, fine, interpretation of the law, removal, return migration








C_2013026EN.01001302.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/13





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rovigo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Md Sagor
(Case C-430/11) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation providing for a fine which may be replaced by an order for expulsion or home detention)
2013/C 26/23
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Rovigo

Party in the main proceedings

Md Sagor

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Rovigo — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 on a foreign national who unlawfully enters or stays in the national territory — Whether it is possible for an illegal stay to constitute a criminal offence — Whether it is possible to replace the fine with immediate expulsion for a period of not less than five years or a penalty entailing curtailment of liberty (‘permanenza domiciliare’) — Member States’ obligations during the period for transposition of a directive

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as:






—


not precluding Member State legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which penalises illegal stays by third-country nationals by means of a fine which may be replaced by an expulsion order, and










—


precluding Member State legislation which allows illegal stays by third-country nationals to be penalised by means of a home detention order without guaranteeing that the enforcement of that order must come to an end as soon as the physical transportation of the individual concerned out of that Member State is possible.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case T-630/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Strobl v Commission (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Recruitment — Open competition — Candidates whose names are included in a list of suitable candidates prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Grading under the new, less favourable rules — Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Error in law — Obligation to state reasons on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appointment of staff, competition (EU), staff assessment








C_2013026EN.01004302.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/43





Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Strobl v Commission
(Case T-630/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public service - Officials - Recruitment - Open competition - Candidates whose names are included in a list of suitable candidates prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Notice of vacancy - Appointment - Grading under the new, less favourable rules - Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Error in law - Obligation to state reasons on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal)
2013/C 26/83
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peter Strobl (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer); and Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Herrmann and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-56/05 Strobl v Commission [2011] 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 Peter Strobl to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
Case C-562/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Article 11 — Export refunds — Request for a refund in respect of exported goods which do not confer entitlement to a refund — Administrative penalty)
Date: 2012-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, agricultural product, export refund, farming sector, interpretation of the law








C_2013026EN.01001402.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/14





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-562/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Article 11 - Export refunds - Request for a refund in respect of exported goods which do not confer entitlement to a refund - Administrative penalty)
2013/C 26/25
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA)

Respondent on a point of law: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12), in particular Article 11(1) thereof — Request for an export refund in a situation in which no refund is provided for — Whether a penalty may be imposed on the person making the request

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the exemptions laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1), the reduction referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) must be applied, inter alia, in the case where it turns out that the goods for export in respect of which a refund was requested were not of sound and fair marketable quality, notwithstanding the fact that the exporter acted in good faith and correctly described the nature and origin of those goods.


(1)  OJ C 39, 11.02.2012.