do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-272/00: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Barbini and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, Veneto, common market, reimbursement of aid, social-security contribution, tax relief








C_2013086EN.01001502.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/15





Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Barbini and Others v Commission
(Case T-272/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2013/C 86/24
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Alfredo Barbini Srl (Murano, Italy); Aureliano Toso Srl (Murano); AVMazzega Srl (Murano); Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl (Murano); Carlo Moretti Srl (Murano); Effetre SpA (Resana, Italy); Ferro & Lazzarini Srl (Murano); Formia Srl (Murano); Gino Cenedese & Figlio (Murano); La Murrina (Murano); Mazzuccato International Srl (Murano); Nason & Moretti Srl, (Murano); Tfz Internazionale Srl (Murano); V. Nason & C. Srl (Murano); Venini SpA (Murano); Vetreria de Majo Srl (Murano); and Vetreria LAG Srl (Murano) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola and A. Sodano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: U. Leanza initially, then by I. Braguglia, then R. Adam and finally I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the order







1.


The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.










2.


The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










3.


Alfredo Barbini Srl, Aureliano Toso Srl, AVMazzega Srl, Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl, Carlo Moretti Srl, Effetre SpA, Ferro & Lazzarini Srl, Formia Srl, Gino Cenedese & Figlio, La Murrina, Mazzuccato International Srl, Nason & Moretti Srl, Tfz Internazionale Srl, V. Nason & C. Srl, Venini SpA, Vetreria de Majo Srl, and Vetreria LAG Srl, in addition to bearing their own costs, are to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.










4.


The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
Case C-47/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2013 — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, area of holding, crop rotation, fodder-growing, grassland, interpretation of the law, permanent crop








C_2013108EN.01001602.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2013 — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
(Case C-47/13)
2013/C 108/34
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Martin Grund

Defendant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Is agricultural land permanent pasture within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the regulation (1) if used currently and for at least five years for the cultivation of grass or other herbaceous forage but during this period the area has been ploughed and instead of the previous herbaceous forage (in this case clover) another herbaceous forage (in this case field grass) sown, or do such cases constitute a crop rotation precluding the creation of permanent pasture?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).
Case T-44/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — AbbVie v EMA
Date: 2013-01-29
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.01003102.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/31





Action brought on 29 January 2013 — AbbVie v EMA
(Case T-44/13)
2013/C 79/53
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 applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/748792/2012 of 14 January 2013 granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medicinal product; and










—


Order the European Medicines Agency to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and the applicants’ fundamental rights to the protection of confidential commercial information.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(4) of the Transparency Regulation and the principle of good administration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the obligation to state reasons as regards the application of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the principle of legitimate expectations










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Directive 2001/29/EC (2), the fundamental rights protecting property rights, including copyright and the principle of proportionality and good administration, insofar as the access is granted by providing a copy of the documents.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

(2)  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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10)
Case F-9/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: breach of domicile, claim, legal expenses








C_2013215EN.01002001.xml










27.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/20





Action brought on 29 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-9/13)
2013/C 215/28
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 Commission’s decision to set off the sum corresponding to the costs it was ordered to pay by the General Court in Case T-176/04 against the sum which the applicant is required to pay pursuant to the order in Case T-241/03.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the note of 6 March 2012;










—


Annul the decision to effect recovery by offsetting the debt of EUR 1 600 owed by the Commission to the applicant against the sum of EUR 4 875 purportedly owed by the applicant to the Commission, which is denied;










—


Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 June 2012 sent by the applicant to the Commission and received by the latter at a date not later than 23 June 2012;










—


Annul the note of 27 August 2012 received by the applicant on 9 October 2012,










—


Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant in respect of all the costs incurred in the present proceedings.
Case T-283/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark nfon — Earlier Community trade mark fon and earlier national word mark FON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for alteration)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2013071EN.01001702.xml










9.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/17





Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon)
(Case T-283/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark nfon - Earlier Community trade mark fon and earlier national word mark FON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for alteration)
2013/C 71/26
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by F. Brandolini Kujman, and then by L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: nfon AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Schweyer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2011 (Case R 1017/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fon Wireless Ltd and nfon AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


alters the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 March 2011 (Case R 1017/2009-4) to the effect that the action brought by nfon AG before the Board of Appeal is dismissed;










2.


orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fon Wireless Ltd;










3.


orders nfon to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
Case T-45/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, damages, database, evaluation method, information system, telecommunications industry








C_2013178EN.01001003.xml










22.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/10





Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission
(Case T-45/13)
2013/C 178/19
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Rose Vision, SL (Seseña, Spain) and Julián Seseña (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: M. Muñiz Bernuy and A. Alonso Villa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the decisions to suspend agreed payments;










—


remove Rose Vision, SL from the Central Exclusion Database and the Early Warning System (EWS);










—


order the defendant to pay EUR 5 000 624 in damages.





Pleas in law and main arguments

One of the two applicants, an undertaking principally engaged in telecommunications, research and development (R&D) and consultancy services in telecommunications, research and innovation, has worked on numerous projects with the Commission since 2002.
This action has arisen out of two audits of the applicant undertaking carried out between February and April 2011. The audit reports allege a series of failures and irregularities on the part of the applicant undertaking, which were the basis for the suspension of outstanding payments.
The applicants claim that those allegations do not reflect reality. They maintain that it can in fact be seen from a careful reading of one of the two audit reports mentioned above that the aim informing the report was to make an unjustified attack on the applicants for the purpose of discrediting them. In this way, the audit report is mostly based on unverified information. The Commission’s approach is more akin to an investigative, supervisory or inspection-related approach than to that of an audit, in which information must be verified and the reliability of sources ensured.
All of this has caused the applicant undertaking serious harm, not only of an economic nature but also to its professional reputation and to its credibility.
Case T-269/00: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Sagar v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, Veneto, common market, reimbursement of aid, social-security contribution, tax relief








C_2013086EN.01001501.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/15





Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Sagar v Commission
(Case T-269/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2013/C 86/23
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Sagar Srl (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: U. Leanza initially, then I. Braguglia, then R. Adam and finally I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

Operative part of the order







1.


The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.










2.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










3.


Sagar Srl, in addition to bearing its own costs, is to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.










4.


The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013027EN.01000101.xml










29.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 January 2013
2013/C 27/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3444




JPY


Japanese yen


122,21




DKK


Danish krone


7,4605




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85450




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6583




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2472




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4420




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,690




HUF


Hungarian forint


298,40




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6987




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1989




RON


Romanian leu


4,3963




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3734




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2930




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3562




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4295




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6210




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6646




KRW


South Korean won


1 466,53




ZAR


South African rand


12,0906




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3717




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5878




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 011,59




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0950




PHP


Philippine peso


55,091




RUB


Russian rouble


40,5020




THB


Thai baht


40,278




BRL


Brazilian real


2,7361




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1653




INR


Indian rupee


72,4830






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-396/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanța — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against Ciprian Vasile Radu (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution — Grounds for refusing execution)
Date: 2013-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, Romania, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure








C_2013086EN.01000501.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/5





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanța — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against Ciprian Vasile Radu
(Case C-396/11) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution - Grounds for refusing execution)
2013/C 86/07
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curte de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ciprian Vasile Radu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Constanța — Interpretation of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), and of Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 6, 48 and 52 thereof — European arrest warrant issued for prosecution purposes — Possibility for the Member State responsible for executing the warrant to refuse the request for surrender of the person sought on grounds of failure to comply with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and also because the Member State which issued the warrant has failed, in whole or in part, to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA into national law

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authorities cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution on the ground that the requested person was not heard in the issuing Member State before that arrest warrant was issued.


(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.