do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice the impending expiry of certain countervailing measures
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, acid, countervailing charge, export subsidy, import restriction, originating product








C_2013028EN.01001201.xml










30.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/12





Notice the impending expiry of certain countervailing measures
2013/C 28/06
1.   As provided for in Article 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury.
Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 8/20, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Sulphanilic acid


India


Countervailing duty


Council Regulation (EC) No 1010/2008 (OJ L 276, 17.10.2008, p. 3)


18.10.2013




 


 


Undertaking


Commission Decision 2006/37/EC (OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 52)


 






(1)  OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.

(2)  Tel. +32 22956505.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-51/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: framework agreement, indemnification, infringement of EU law, provision of services








C_2013086EN.01002602.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/26





Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB
(Case T-51/13)
2013/C 86/44
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 536 610,22, as compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, with compensatory interest from 31/01/2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;·










—


order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 150 000, as exemplary damages, with compensatory interest from 31 January 2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;










—


order the EIB to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant claims, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU read together with Article 266 TFEU, before the General Court of the European Union compensation for the damage which it has suffered because of the unlawful conduct of the European Investment Bank (‘the EIB’).
That damage arose when, as was ruled by the General Court in its judgment of 20 September 2011 in Case Τ-461/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB, the EIB unlawfully rejected the applicant’s tender in the call for tenders relating to the award of a framework agreement for the provision of services.
In that context, the applicant claims, first, damages by way of compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, as a means of restoration of the status quo ante, and, secondly, exemplary damages for the unlawful and improper conduct of the EIB towards the applicant.
The applicant maintains that the conditions for establishing the EIB’s non-contractual liability, as set out in settled case-law, to enable it to be compensated are satisfied.
Case T-47/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013086EN.01002501.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/25





Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)
(Case T-47/13)
2013/C 86/41
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (Cham, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christin Vieweg (Sonneberg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2012 in Case R 2589/2011-1;










—


Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Christin Vieweg

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘goldstück’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 153 677

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘GOLDSTEIG’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 43

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the applicant’s opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-53/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, interpretation of the law, labour mobility, tax on income, tax relief








C_2013141EN.01001101.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-53/13)
2013/C 141/18
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Strojírny Prostějov, a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Do Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the application of national legislation which, where an undertaking supplying workers to another undertaking (the supplier) has its seat in the territory of another Member State, imposes on the undertaking using the workers the obligation to deduct income tax in respect of those workers and pay it into the State budget, whereas if the supplier has its seat in the territory of the Czech Republic that obligation is on the supplier?
Case C-50/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: proof, public sector, temporary employment, work contract








C_2013147EN.01000302.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
(Case C-50/13)
2013/C 147/06
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Aosta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rocco Papalia

Defendant: Comune di Aosta

Question referred

Must Directive 1999/70/EC (1) (Article 1, along with Clause 5 of the annexed framework agreement, as well as any other provision in any way connected or linked) be interpreted as permitting a situation in which a worker who has been recruited by a public body on a fixed-term contract, without the requirements laid down by the above Community rules being satisfied, is entitled to compensation in respect of damage only if he proves that such damage actually exists, and thus only if he provides positive, including presumptive, evidence, but at any rate specific evidence, that he has had to forgo other, better, employment opportunities?


(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013028EN.01000101.xml










30.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 January 2013
2013/C 28/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3433




JPY


Japanese yen


121,52




DKK


Danish krone


7,4595




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85360




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6110




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2416




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4110




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,659




HUF


Hungarian forint


297,40




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6991




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2090




RON


Romanian leu


4,3835




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3805




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2860




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3510




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4223




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6072




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6629




KRW


South Korean won


1 458,03




ZAR


South African rand


12,1785




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3659




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5870




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 003,25




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1421




PHP


Philippine peso


54,836




RUB


Russian rouble


40,4900




THB


Thai baht


40,098




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6773




MXN


Mexican peso


17,1112




INR


Indian rupee


72,1960






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-87/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment — Procedure — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Competence)
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2013147EN.01003201.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/32





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013
Wahlström v Frontex
(Case F-87/11) (1)

(Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment - Procedure - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Competence)
2013/C 147/57
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Alimos, Greece), (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex),(represented by S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

The annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, of 10 December 2010, not to extend Mr Wahlström’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;










2.


Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wahlström.






(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 45.
Case T-56/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v Commission
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU environmental policy, access to information, access to the courts, bioenergy, biomass, civil society








C_2013101EN.01002301.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/23





Action brought on 30 January 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v Commission
(Case T-56/13)
2013/C 101/50
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); and Stichting BirdLife Europe (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s refusal of their request for access to the latest draft of a literature review, on the so-called ‘carbon-debt’ of bioenergy derived from biomass, pursuant to 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, and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; and










—


Order the defendant to pay applicants’ costs for conducting these proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.
The applicants contend that as a result of its failure to address them with an express decision regarding their request for access within the time-limits for the processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3). Further, the applicants state that this implied refusal decision was unmotivated and therefore they submit that it should be annulled for the reason of the Commission’s breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 41(2), 3rd indent of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6812 — SFPI/Dexia)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, investment company, merger control








C_2013028EN.01001301.xml










30.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6812 — SFPI/Dexia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 28/07






1.


On 18 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 the Belgian state investment fund Société Fédérale de Participations et d'Investissement/Federale Participatie- en Investeringsmaatschappij (‘SFPI’, Belgium) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Dexia SA/NV (‘Dexia’, Belgium) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


SFPI: investments in public and private companies of strategic interest, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Belgian state,










—


Dexia: financial services, in particular public finance, including project finance, and asset management in several countries, mainly in France, through a number of subsidiaries.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6812 — SFPI/Dexia, 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’).
Case T-48/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Out of the Blue KG v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX)
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electricity storage device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013086EN.01002502.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/25





Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Out of the Blue KG v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX)
(Case T-48/13)
2013/C 86/42
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and I. George, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meinhard Mombauer (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2012 in Case R 1656/2011-4;










—


Order OHIM to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;










—


Were Meinhard Mombauer to participate as intervener in the proceedings, order him to bear his own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Out of the blue KG

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘REFLEXX’ for goods in Class 9 — Application for Community trade mark No 7 239 511

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Meinhard Mombauer

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘RELFECTS’, for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in Law: Infringement of Article 42(5) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Special Report No 20/2012 ‘Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives?’
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: activity report, domestic waste, financial aid, municipality, waste management








C_2013028EN.01000201.xml










30.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/2





Special Report No 20/2012 ‘Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives?’
2013/C 28/02
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 20/2012 ‘Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case F-20/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 — De Luca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Referral back to the General Court after annulment — Appointment — Official advancing to a higher function group by open competition — Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in grade pursuant to the new rules — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, appointment of staff, competition (EU)








C_2013147EN.01003101.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/31





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 — De Luca v Commission
(Case F-20/06)
(Civil service - Officials - Referral back to the General Court after annulment - Appointment - Official advancing to a higher function group by open competition - Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new rules - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
2013/C 147/55
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February 2005 appointing the applicant, an official already graded at A*10 and a successful candidate in a competition for grades A5/A4, to a post as an administrator in the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security in so far as it alters her classification in grade from A*10 to A*9.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Declares that Mrs De Luca and the European Commission must bear their own costs in the two sets of proceedings brought before the Tribunal;










3.


Declares that the European Commission must bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs of Mrs De Luca incurred in the proceedings brought before the General Court of the European Union;










4.


Declares that the Council of the European Union must bear its own costs.