do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-8/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovenia, domestic market, electrical energy, harmonisation of standards, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, periodic penalty payment








C_2013063EN.01001402.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/14





Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-8/13)
2013/C 63/24
Language of the case: Slovene

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Kukovec, P. Hetsch and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;










—


order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment of EUR 10 287,36 a day, from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the directive expired on 3 March 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.
Case F-2/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Angola, indemnification, pay, purchasing power, reassignment








C_2013129EN.01003002.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/30





Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-2/13)
2013/C 129/56
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request to apply to the salary received by him from May 2001 until the end of his mission in Angola the correction coefficient referred to in Articles 12 and 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the request of 24 October 2011;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 21 May 2012 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority against the decision rejecting the request of 24 October 2011 and seeking the annulment of that decision and the granting of the request of 24 October 2011;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the note of 14 August 2012;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant, for each month from March 2001 until the last month of his mission, if only de jure, carrying out duties in the EC Delegation in Angola, the sum arising from the difference (‘the difference in remuneration’) between what the applicant should have received if the correction coefficient for Angola, as referred to in Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 12 and 13 in Annex X to the regulations, had been applied de jure to his monthly salary, and what the applicant actually received by way of remuneration pursuant to Article 62 of the regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of every difference in remuneration, interest by way of compensation for the delay on its part in paying the sums in question, at the rate of 10 per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from the date on which each monthly instalment of his remuneration was paid, or should have been paid to the applicant, until actual payment of the differences in remuneration;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of each difference in remuneration, compensation for the erosion of purchasing power, by reference to the annual variations in the cost of living index for Brussels, referred to in Article 1 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulation as the ‘Brussels International Index’, or any other such index which the Court may deem it fair and equitable to apply in the present case, with annual capitalisation, with effect from the date on which each monthly instalment of the applicant’s remuneration was paid or should have been paid until actual payment of the compensation in question;










—


order the Commission to pay the cost.
Case T-274/12: Order of the General Court of 7 January 2013 — Alfastar Benelux v Council (Actions for failure to act — Action devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Actions for damages — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appeal, indemnification, infringement of EU law, legal basis








C_2013055EN.01001302.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/13





Order of the General Court of 7 January 2013 — Alfastar Benelux v Council
(Case T-274/12) (1)

(Actions for failure to act - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Actions for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2013/C 55/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 266 TFEU in failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council, not published in the ECR, and, in addition, a claim for damages under Article 340 TFEU

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration of failure to act, brought by Alfastar Benelux SA.










2.


The claim for damages brought by Alfastar Benelux is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










3.


Alfastar Benelux shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. The Council shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by Alfastar Benelux.






(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Case C-9/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovenia, domestic market, harmonisation of standards, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, natural gas, periodic penalty payment








C_2013063EN.01001501.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/15





Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-9/13)
2013/C 63/25
Language of the case: Slovene

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Kukovec, P. Hetsch and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2009/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;










—


order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment of EUR 10 287,36 a day, from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the directive expired on 3 March 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.
Case C-666/11: Order of the President of the Court of 7 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany)) — M, N, O, p, Q v Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, interpretation of the law, removal, right of asylum, suicide








C_2013079EN.01001102.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/11





Order of the President of the Court of 7 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany)) — M, N, O, p, Q v Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge
(Case C-666/11) (1)

2013/C 79/19
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
Case C-7/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 7 January 2013 — Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige v Skatteverket
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, foreign enterprise, legal domicile, tax collection, third country








C_2013055EN.01000801.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 7 January 2013 — Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige v Skatteverket
(Case C-7/13)
2013/C 55/12
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige

Defendant: Skatteverket

Questions referred







1.


Do supplies of externally purchased services from a company’s main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State, with an allocation of costs for the purchase to the branch, constitute taxable transactions if the branch belongs to a VAT group in the Member State?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is the main establishment in the third country to be viewed as a taxable person not established in the Member State within the meaning of Article 196 of the Directive, (1) with the result that the purchaser is to be taxed for the transactions?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-7/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ADEAS v Commission
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, civil servant, domestic market, financing method, infringement of EU law, retirement conditions, telecommunications industry








C_2013079EN.01002202.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/22





Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ADEAS v Commission
(Case T-7/13)
2013/C 79/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Association pour la Défense de l’Épargne et de l’Actionnariat des Salariés de France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare admissible the ADEAS’s application;










—


rule that the decision is annulled;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant is seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011, declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)). (1)

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law which are essentially similar or identical to those put forward in Case T-2/13 CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission.


(1)  OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1.
Case T-15/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitairy Solutions (Representation of a shower drainage pipe)
Date: 2013-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01002801.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/28





Action brought on 7 January 2013 — Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitairy Solutions (Representation of a shower drainage pipe)
(Case T-15/13)
2013/C 108/72
Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Group Nivelles (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: H. Jonkhout, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Sanitairy Solutions BV (Losser, Netherlands)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 October 2012 in Case 2004/2010-3 and, correcting the grounds as necessary, uphold the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 23 September 2010 in Case ICD 000007024, notification of the latter decision having been received on 1 October 2010.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design representing a shower drainage pipe — Community design No 107834-0025

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Easy Sanitairy Solutions BV

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Group Nivelles

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Design declared invalid.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal’s decision is based on incorrect grounds and, in factual terms, on a false point of comparison.