do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-150/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, indemnification








C_2013147EN.01003602.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/36





Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-150/12)
2013/C 147/70
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision refusing payment to the applicant of part of the resettlement allowance and reimbursement of certain travel expenses.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 29 March 2012 in so far as the applicant was thereby refused payment of the second half of the resettlement allowance under Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and full reimbursement of travel expenses under Article 7 of Annex VII;










—


order the defendant to pay to the applicant the second half of the resettlement allowance in the amount of a further month’s basic salary, together with full travel expenses to his place of origin, on account of the termination of the applicant’s service, in respect of the applicant, his wife and his severely disabled son who lives with the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and all necessary expenses incurred by the applicant.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6715 — CNOOC/Nexen) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, natural gas, oil industry








C_2012384EN.01000301.xml










13.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6715 — CNOOC/Nexen)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 384/02
On 7 December 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 32012M6715. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-34/10: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MAGIC LIGHT — Earlier national word mark MAGIC LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consumer protection, film industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013038EN.01001802.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/18





Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)
(Case T-34/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MAGIC LIGHT - Earlier national word mark MAGIC LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 38/29
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Kresbach, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rüdiger Bartmann (Gladbeck, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 656/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rüdiger Bartmann and Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
Case T-595/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — A v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Social security — Occupational disease — Total permanent invalidity — Access to the personal file — Reimbursement of travel expenses — Claim for damages)
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, disability insurance, indemnification, occupational disease, redemption








C_2013038EN.01002101.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/21





Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — A v Commission
(Case T-595/11) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Social security - Occupational disease - Total permanent invalidity - Access to the personal file - Reimbursement of travel expenses - Claim for damages)
2013/C 38/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: A (P., France) (represented by: B. Cambier, A. Paternostre and L. Levi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011, A v Commission (F-12/09, not yet published in the ECR), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


There is no further need to rule on the appeal in so far as it concerns the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2011, A v Commission (F-12/09, not yet published in the ECR), in so far as it concerns the application to set aside the decision of 28 April 2008 in as far as it refused to pay the provisional allowance provided for under Article 19(4) of the joint rules and to apply the provisions of Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations, and the application to order the Commission to pay the benefit provided for by that article;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1210/2012 of 13 December 2012 establishing a prohibition of fishing for whiting in VI; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of United Kingdom
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Azores, EU waters, Faroes, Greenland, United Kingdom, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2012348EN.01000301.xml










18.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 348/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1210/2012
of 13 December 2012
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for whiting in VI; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of United Kingdom


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 December 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 25, 27.1.2012, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


79/TQ43




Member State


United Kingdom




Stock


WHG/56-14




Species


Whiting (Merlangius merlangus)




Zone


VI; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV




Date


19.8.2012
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012384EN.01000501.xml










13.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 December 2012
2012/C 384/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3040




JPY


Japanese yen


108,12




DKK


Danish krone


7,4604




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80775




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6275




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2109




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,3295




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,265




HUF


Hungarian forint


282,33




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6961




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0969




RON


Romanian leu


4,5268




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3198




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2358




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2850




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1061




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5504




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5926




KRW


South Korean won


1 400,12




ZAR


South African rand


11,3109




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1480




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5225




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 558,82




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9792




PHP


Philippine peso


53,502




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9645




THB


Thai baht


39,928




BRL


Brazilian real


2,7112




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6319




INR


Indian rupee


70,7490






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-136/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (pelican) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark pelikan — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the applicant — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2013038EN.01001901.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/19





Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (pelican)
(Case T-136/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark pelikan - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the applicant - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 38/31
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: pelicantravel.com s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Chlipala, lawyer)

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, intervener before the General Court: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2010 (Case R 1428/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between pelicantravel.com s.r.o. and Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders pelicantravel.com s.r.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, accounting, assistant, audit, statistics








C_2012384EN.01001401.xml










13.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/14





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
2012/C 384/12
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition:
EPSO/AST/125/12 — Assistants (AST 3) in the following fields:






1.


Audit










2.


Finance/Accounting










3.


Economics/Statistics




The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 384 A of 6 December 2012.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, economic recession, financial services








C_2012384EN.01000801.xml










13.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/8





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
2012/C 384/07
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measures constitute compatible State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


11 July 2012




Case number


:


68972




Decision number


:


292/12/COL




EFTA State


:


Iceland




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Decision regarding State aid granted by the Icelandic State through New Glitnir, New Landsbankinn and New Kaupþing during the wind up of certain investment funds




Legal basis


:


Article 61(1) and Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA




Type of measures


:


Measures to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy




Economic sectors


:


Financial services




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-654/11 P: Order of the Court of 13 December 2012 — Transcatab SpA, in liquidation v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchasing and primary processing of raw tobacco — Price fixing and market sharing — Attribution of liability for the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, competition, equal treatment, fine, fixing of prices, parent company, rights of the defence, subsidiary, tobacco








C_2013055EN.01000202.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/2





Order of the Court of 13 December 2012 — Transcatab SpA, in liquidation v European Commission
(Case C-654/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchasing and primary processing of raw tobacco - Price fixing and market sharing - Attribution of liability for the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Principle of equal treatment)
2013/C 55/03
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Transcatab SpA, in liquidation (represented by: G. Mastrantonio, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2011 in Case T-39/06 Transcatab v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and for a reduction of the fine imposed on Transcatab by that decision and the counterclaim by the Commission seeking to increase that fine — Italian market for the purchasing and primary processing of raw tobacco — Attribution of liability to a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Rebuttable presumption in the case of a 100 % shareholding — Fundamental principles governing the taking of evidence — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is rejected.










2.


Transcatab SpA is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
Case C-587/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, infringement of EU law, reimbursement of aid








C_2013063EN.01001101.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/11





Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission
(Case C-587/12 P)
2013/C 63/18
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012, served on 3 October 2012, in Case T-257/10 Italian Republic v Commission concerning an action seeking annulment under Article 264 TFEU of the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2010 (C(2010) 1711 final) relating to State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002), notified by letter of 25 March 2010 (SG Greffe (2010) D/4224), and as a consequence also annul that decision;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Italian Republic puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.
First, it alleges infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and of Articles 4, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 20 of Regulation (EC) 659/99. (1) The General Court erred in accepting that the Commission could, in this case, adopt a new decision without opening a fresh investigation procedure in the course of which the Italian Republic and the interested parties were given an opportunity to make known their views.
Second, it pleads infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of the principle of the authority of res judicata. The General Court should have annulled the Commission’s new decision in so far as it reproduced the same, incorrect, assessment which had already formed the basis of the first decision.
Third, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Articles 1(1)(d) and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006. (2) The General Court erred in holding that the contested measures were not among the measures which, under that regulation, do not constitute State aid.
Fourth, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 and is in breach of the principle of proportionality. The General Court erred in omitting to take note of the fact that the Commission’s decision required recovery of an advantage from which the undertaking had in actual fact never benefited.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2006 L 379, p, 5).
Case F-70/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012 — Parikka v SEAE
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, indemnification, promotion








C_2013038EN.01003303.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/33





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012 — Parikka v SEAE
(Case F-70/12) (1)

2013/C 38/66
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 29.
Case F-152/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-12-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, transfer of pension rights








C_2013071EN.01003002.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/30





Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-152/12)
2013/C 71/53
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 26 March 2012 concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service with the Commission under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 3 September 2012 directed against the decision fixing the calculation of his pension rights acquired before his entry into service in the EU pension scheme;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.