do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-35/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2013 — ASS.I.CA. and Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others
Date: 2013-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, interpretation of the law, meat product, producer organisation








C_2013086EN.01001301.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2013 — ASS.I.CA. and Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others
(Case C-35/13)
2013/C 86/21
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: ASS.I.CA. — Associazione Industriali delle Carni, Kraft Foods Italia SpA

Respondents: Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) be interpreted as precluding a producers’ association from being able to claim the right exclusively to use, within the [European Union], a designation of geographical origin used within a Member State to designate a specific type of salami sausage, without having first obtained a legally binding measure from that Member State establishing the boundaries of the geographical area of production, the rules and regulations governing production, and any requirements which producers may have to satisfy in order to be entitled to use that designation?










2.


In the light of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which set of rules should be applied within the [European Union] market and also within the market of a Member State to a geographical designation which has not obtained the registration referred to in that regulation?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013021EN.01000901.xml










24.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 January 2013
2013/C 21/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3330




JPY


Japanese yen


117,98




DKK


Danish krone


7,4629




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84070




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6909




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2385




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4015




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,597




HUF


Hungarian forint


294,57




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6979




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1638




RON


Romanian leu


4,3755




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3591




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2635




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3222




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3351




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5827




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6347




KRW


South Korean won


1 421,90




ZAR


South African rand


11,9650




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2891




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5790




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 832,90




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0569




PHP


Philippine peso


54,201




RUB


Russian rouble


40,2314




THB


Thai baht


39,710




BRL


Brazilian real


2,7205




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8538




INR


Indian rupee


71,4590






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-118/12 P: Order of the Court of 24 January 2013 — Enviro Tech Europe Ltd v European Commission, Enviro Tech International Inc. (Appeal — Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC — Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances — Classification of n-propyl-bromide)
Date: 2013-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: inflammable product, labelling, packaging, pesticide, solvent








C_2013108EN.01000901.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/9





Order of the Court of 24 January 2013 — Enviro Tech Europe Ltd v European Commission, Enviro Tech International Inc.
(Case C-118/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC - Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances - Classification of n-propyl-bromide)
2013/C 108/17
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents), Enviro Tech International Inc.

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04 Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for (i) annulment in part of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1), in so far as it classifies n-propyl-bromide as a ‘highly flammable’ substance, and for (ii) damages for the loss which the applicants claim they had sustained — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of individual concern

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Enviro Tech Europe Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
Case T-474/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (JACKSON SHOES) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark JACKSON SHOES — Earlier national business name JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB — Relative ground for refusal — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013071EN.01001501.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/15





Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (JACKSON SHOES)
(Case T-474/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark JACKSON SHOES - Earlier national business name JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB - Relative ground for refusal - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 71/21
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: A. Rodrigues, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jacson of Scandinavia AB (Vollsjö, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2009 (Case R 1253/2008-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Jacson of Scandinavia AB and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6823 — CD & R/B & M) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-01-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, consumer goods, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, retail selling








C_2013021EN.01001201.xml










24.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6823 — CD & R/B & M)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 21/06






1.


On 16 January 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which funds managed by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice LLC (‘CD & R’, USA) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the whole of the undertaking SBR Europe Sàrl (‘SBR’, Luxembourg), which is the indirect parent company of B & M Retail Limited (‘B & M’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CD & R: private equity investment,










—


for B & M: retail sale of daily consumer goods in the UK.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6823 — CD & R/B & M, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case T-32/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2012 in Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
Date: 2013-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, abuse of power, equal treatment, job vacancy, professional experience








C_2013086EN.01002202.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/22





Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2012 in Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
(Case T-32/13 P)
2013/C 86/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Order






—


that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2012 (Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission) dismissing the action brought by the applicant is annulled;














—


giving judgment itself,










—


order






—


that the decision of the European Commission rejecting the applicant’s application for the vacant post of Director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ in Directorate General (DG) ‘Justice’ and the decision nominating Ms Y to that post are annulled;














—


order the Commission to pay the costs at both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts:






—


firstly, in that the CST considered that the term ‘background’ used in the vacancy notice in the contested procedure referred to experience and not to training. The appellant submits that it is apparent in particular from the vacancy notices published by the Commission that when professional experience is required, the term ‘experience’ is used rather than ‘background’;










—


secondly, in that the CST considered that the term ‘regulation’ did not refer to regulatory mechanisms but to the legislative process.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors of law, the CST having examined the indications of misuse of power in an isolated rather than global manner, without seeking to establish whether the indications taken together, given their number, made it possible to call into question the lawfulness of the decisions contested at first instance.
In addition, the appellant argues that the CST disregarded, in the light of the inequality of arms of the parties, the right to a fair hearing by refusing to adopt measures of organisation of the procedure enabling the indications of misuse of power to be emphasised and evidence to be adduced of a factor which could have been demonstrated only by such a measure.