do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 January 2013 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part (11699/2012 — C7-0193/2012 — 2008/0251(NLE))
Date: 2013-01-17
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Zambia, Zimbabwe, cooperation agreement (EU), economic agreement, interim agreement (EU)








C_2015440EN.01030201.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 440/302





P7_TA(2013)0025
Interim agreement establishing a framework for an EC-Eastern and Southern Africa States Economic Partnership Agreement ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 January 2013 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part (11699/2012 — C7-0193/2012 — 2008/0251(NLE))
(Consent)
(2015/C 440/33)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (11699/2012),










—


having regard to the Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part (1),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), Article 209(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0193/2012),










—


having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0431/2012),












1.


Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles and Zimbabwe.






(1)  OJ L 111, 24.4.2012, p. 2.
Case T-29/13: Action brought on 17 January 2013 — AbbVie e.a. v EMA
Date: 2013-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative transparency, confidentiality, copyright, data protection, harmonisation of standards, infringement of EU law, market approval, medicinal product, principle of proportionality








C_2013079EN.01002602.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/26





Action brought on 17 January 2013 — AbbVie e.a. v EMA
(Case T-29/13)
2013/C 79/46
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: AbbVie, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); and AbbVie Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert, G. Berrisch, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/685471/2012, of 5 November 2012, granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medical product; and










—


Order the European Medicines Agency to pay all costs in these proceedings, including the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns a request for annulment under Article 263(4) TFEU of the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/685471/2012, of 5 November 2012, granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medicinal product, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First, the Decision violates Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation and the Applicants’ fundamental right to the protection of confidential commercial information.










2.


Second, the Decision violates the obligation to state reasons as regards the application of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation.










3.


Third, the Decision violates the principle of legitimate expectations.










4.


Fourth, the Decision violates Directive No 2001/29/EC (1) on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, of fundamental rights protecting property rights, including copyright and of the principles of proportionality and of good administration, insofar as access is granted by providing a copy of the documents.






(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
Case C-261/12 P: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Annunziata Del Prete v Giorgio Armani SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation — Figurative sign ‘AJ AMICI JUNIOR’ — Opposition by the holder of the earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS and of the earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR)
Date: 2013-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, footwear industry, infringement of EU law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013079EN.01000202.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/2





Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Annunziata Del Prete v Giorgio Armani SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-261/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation - Figurative sign ‘AJ AMICI JUNIOR’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS and of the earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR)
2013/C 79/03
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Annunziata Del Prete (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Giorgio Armani SpA (represented by: M. Rapisardi, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2012 in Case T-420/10 Armani v OHIM, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 concerning opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani SpA and Annunziata Del Prete (Case R 1360/2009-2) — Likelihood of confusion — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed;










2.


Annunziata Del Prete shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
Joined Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Activity unconnected with the duties of a Member of the European Parliament — Procedure for waiving immunity — Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, damages, indemnification, parliamentary immunity, privilege








C_2013063EN.01001803.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/18





Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Gollnisch v Parliament
(Joined Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11) (1)

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive immunity - Activity unconnected with the duties of a Member of the European Parliament - Procedure for waiving immunity - Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 63/36
Language of the cases: French

Parties


Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action for annulment of a decision adopted by the European Parliament on 10 May 2011 to waive the immunity of the applicant, and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant in connection therewith and, second, action for annulment of the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant, adopted by the European Parliament on 10 May 2011, and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant in connection therewith.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action for annulment and the application for compensation in Case T-346/11;










2.


rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment in Case T-347/11;










3.


dismisses the application for compensation in Case T-347/11;










4.


orders Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs, including those relating to the applications for interim measures in Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11.






(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
Case C-173/12 P: Order of the Court of 17 January 2013 — Verenigde Douaneagenten BVv European Commission (Appeal — Article 220(2) of the Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Incorrect presentation of the facts — Import of raw cane sugar)
Date: 2013-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cane sugar, customs formalities, import (EU)








C_2013108EN.01001002.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/10





Order of the Court of 17 January 2013 — Verenigde Douaneagenten BVv European Commission
(Case C-173/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 220(2) of the Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Incorrect presentation of the facts - Import of raw cane sugar)
2013/C 108/20
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: Verenigde Douaneagenten BV (represented by: S. Moolenaar, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Burggraaf and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 February 2012 in Case T-32/11 Verenigde Douaneagenten v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed in part the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6754 final of 1 October 2010 finding that there should be post clearance recovery of import duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REC 02/09)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Verenigde Douaneagenten BV are ordered to pay costs.






(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
Case T-20/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2013-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, disability insurance, indemnification, pension scheme








C_2013071EN.01002601.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/26





Appeal brought on 17 January 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-20/13 P)
2013/C 71/40
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant requests the Court: (1a) to declare that there is no legal basis for the judgment delivered on 6 November 2012 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission or (1b), in the alternative, to set aside the judgment in its entirety; and (2a), given that the state of the proceedings so permits: (2aa) grant all claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance, including the claim that the EC (sic) be ordered to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings; or (2b), in the alternative, refer the case back to the court at first instance for a fresh decision on each of the claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment referred to above, which dismissed the action which had been referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 in Case T-20/09 Commission v Marcuccio, setting aside in part the judgment in Case F-41/06 ruling on the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 May 2005 by which he was retired on grounds of invalidity and of a series of measures connected to that decision, and on a claim that the Commission pay damages.
The appellant relies on 7 grounds of appeal.






1.



Errores in procedendo, affecting the appellant’s interests, inherent in the serious, patent, flagrant, spectacular, manifest, irremediable and vital errores in iudicando.










2.


Total failure to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.










3.


The contested decision is unlawful on the grounds, inter alia, of lack of competence on the part of the author of the decision, defects in the decision-making procedure, entailing breach of essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers in the form of abuse of process.










4.


Distortion and misapplication of the facts.










5.


Incorrect, false and unreasonable (application and) breach of the rules on evidence and a number of legal principles and rules of law.










6.


Failure to rule on a number of fundamental aspects of the case.










7.


Unlawfulness of a ruling that a complaint made by the appellant concerning the contested decision was inadmissible.
Case C-541/11: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ (Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2000/26/EC — Compensation bodies — Claim for compensation brought before a national court)
Date: 2013-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, insurance indemnity, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle insurance, road traffic, third-party insurance








C_2013079EN.01000201.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/2





Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ
(Case C-541/11) (1)

(Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2000/26/EC - Compensation bodies - Claim for compensation brought before a national court)
2013/C 79/02
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jožef Grilc

Defendant: Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vrhovno sodišče — Interpretation of Article 6(1), first subparagraph, of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) — Meaning of ‘claim for compensation’ and ‘responsible for providing compensation’ — Capacity of the compensation body to be a defendant in legal proceedings

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that, on the one hand, the injured party may claim compensation for the harm suffered from the compensation body in accordance with the conditions set out in that article and, on the other, that claim must necessarily first have been submitted to the compensation body, without prejudice to the injured party’s right, if necessary, subsequently to bring an action before the court having territorial jurisdiction if that claim has been rejected by that compensation body.


(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.