do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-9/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Supply of external services relating to the provision of electronic publications — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection and award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, computer assisted publishing, damages, indemnification, invitation to tender, provision of services, services contract








C_2013108EN.01002001.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/20





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case T-9/10) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Supply of external services relating to the provision of electronic publications - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection and award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
2013/C 108/53
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, Agents, assisted initially by E. Petritsi, lawyer, and subsequently by E. Petritsi and O. Graber-Soudry, Solicitor, and subsequently represented by E. Manhaeve, assisted by O. Graber-Soudry)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 29 October 2009 in that it rejects the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 2, entitled ‘Electronic publishing based on Microsoft SharePoint Server’, and, inter alia, awards the contracts to the successful tenderers, and in that it awards two contracts from Lot 3, entitled ‘Electronic publishing based on open-source platforms’, to an undertaking belonging to two different consortia, within the framework of the call for tenders AO 10224 for the provision of electronic publications (OJ 2009/S 109-156511), and, secondly, a claim for damages pursuant to Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No CHAP/2012/03180
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, complaint to the Commission, electricity supply, renewable energy, restriction on competition








C_2013050EN.01001001.xml










21.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 50/10





Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No CHAP/2012/03180
2013/C 50/06






1.


The European Commission has received and continues to receive a series of complaints, in which complainants state that Decision No 33 of 14 September 2012 of the State Energy and Water Regulatory Commission in Bulgaria setting grid access tariffs for electricity produced from certain renewable energy sources is a discriminatory measure that breaches several items of EU legislation.










2.


The European Commission has registered and will continue to register these letters under reference number CHAP/2012/03180.










3.


Given the significant number of complaints it has received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of its administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgment of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the Internet at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm










4.


The complaint is currently being examined by the Commission in the light of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16), Directive 2009/72/EC 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 (OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 55) and Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 15).










5.


The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of this examination and of any follow-up action that the Commission may decide to take.
Case C-655/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Seven for all mankind LLC v Seven SpA — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier word mark — Element ‘SEVEN’ — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Relative ground for refusal)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2013114EN.01001602.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/16





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Seven for all mankind LLC v Seven SpA — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-655/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier word mark - Element ‘SEVEN’ - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Relative ground for refusal)
2013/C 114/23
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac and B. Guimberteau, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Seven SpA (represented by: L. Trevisan, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10 SEVEN v OHIM — SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND, by which that Court annulled Decision R 1514/2008-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 rejecting the action against the decision annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected in part the opposition filed by the owner of the Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘Seven’ in respect of goods within Classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 28, against the registration of the word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ in respect of goods within Classes 14 and 18 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Factors to be taken into account when assessing the similarity of the signs

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Seven for all mankind LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Seven SpA;










3.


Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
Case T-123/13: Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013123EN.01002002.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/20





Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)
(Case T-123/13)
2013/C 123/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal on 28 November 2012;










—


Order the OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘dodie’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 037 821

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish and Portuguese trade marks of the word mark ‘DODOT’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the trade mark applied for in relation to certain goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-123/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A Oy (Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Tax legislation — Merger of a parent company established in one Member State with a subsidiary established in another Member State — Deductibility by the parent company of the subsidiary’s losses arising from its activity — Exclusion for non-resident subsidiaries)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, interpretation of the law, merger, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax law








C_2013114EN.01000901.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/9





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A Oy
(Case C-123/11) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Tax legislation - Merger of a parent company established in one Member State with a subsidiary established in another Member State - Deductibility by the parent company of the subsidiary’s losses arising from its activity - Exclusion for non-resident subsidiaries)
2013/C 114/10
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A Oy

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — National tax legislation — Merger with a parent company established in one Member State of a subsidiary having ceased activity in another Member State — Deductibility by the absorbing company, in the Member State in which it is established, of the consolidated losses of the absorbed company resulting from that company’s activity in the other Member State

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, preclude national legislation under which a parent company merging with a subsidiary established in another Member State, which has ceased activity, cannot deduct from its taxable income the losses incurred by that subsidiary in respect of the tax years prior to the merger, while that national legislation allows such a possibility when the merger is with a resident subsidiary. Such national legislation is none the less incompatible with European Union law if it does not allow the parent company the possibility of showing that its non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities of taking those losses into account and that there is no possibility of their being taken into account in its State of residence in respect of future tax years either by itself or by a third party;










2.


The rules for calculating the non-resident subsidiary’s losses for the purpose of their being taken over by the resident parent company, in an operation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must not constitute unequal treatment compared with the rules of calculation which would be applicable if the merger were with a resident subsidiary.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
Case C-79/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 211 — Deferred payment of VAT on importation)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, VAT, customs duties, deadline for payment, import, interpretation of the law, tax system








C_2013114EN.01002001.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/20





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu
(Case C-79/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 211 - Deferred payment of VAT on importation)
2013/C 114/28
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Mora IPR SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Interpretation of Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 26(2), 28, 30 and 107 TFEU — Right of Member States to authorise deferment of VAT on importation — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to impose a condition for obtaining a payment deferment certificate, not provided for under the Directive — Later legislative amendments exempting only certain taxable persons from payment of VAT on importation — Discrimination — Breach of the prohibition on import duties

Operative part of the judgment

Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of legislative rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which make the deferred payment of value added tax due on imported goods conditional on obtaining a certificate that is not required under the wording of that directive, provided that the conditions for obtaining such a certificate comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality, which it is for the national court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
Case C-194/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Spain) — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Annual leave scheduled by the undertaking coinciding with sick leave — Entitlement to take annual leave at another time — Allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken)
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, incapacity for work, indemnification, interpretation of the law, labour law, paid leave








C_2013108EN.01001101.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/11





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Spain) — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA
(Case C-194/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Annual leave scheduled by the undertaking coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take annual leave at another time - Allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken)
2013/C 108/21
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Concepción Maestre García

Defendant: Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Worker on sick leave during the annual leave period fixed by the company — Entitlement of the worker to take leave at another time.

Operative part of the order







1.


Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation according to which a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled unilaterally in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, following the end of his sick leave, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period, for reasons connected with production or organisation of the undertaking.










2.


Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation that permits, while the contract of employment is in force, the payment of an allowance in lieu of the period of annual leave which the worker was not able to take as a result of work incapacity.






(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
Case C-87/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 February 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Other party: X
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, free movement of capital, heritage protection, interpretation of the law, residence, right of establishment, tax on income, tax relief








C_2013141EN.01001402.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 February 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Other party: X
(Case C-87/13)
2013/C 141/24
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: X

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law, in particular the rules on freedom of establishment and on free movement of capital, preclude a resident of Belgium who, at his request, is taxed in the Netherlands as a resident and who has incurred costs in respect of a castle, used by him as his own home, which is located in Belgium and is designated there as a legally protected monument and village conservation area, from deducting those costs in the Netherlands for income tax purposes on the grounds that the castle is not registered as a protected monument in the Netherlands?










2.


To what extent is it important in that regard whether the person concerned may deduct those costs for income tax purposes in his country of residence, Belgium, from his current or future investment income by opting for a system of graduated taxation of that income?
Notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, competition, extraction of oil, gas, petroleum exploration, pipeline transport








C_2013050EN.01000901.xml










21.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 50/9





Notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority
2013/C 50/05
On 6 November 2012, the EFTA Surveillance Authority received a request pursuant to Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC.
This request, filed by the Norwegian Government, concerns activities related to the exploration for, or extraction of, oil and gas on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and to activities intended to enable the transportation of natural gas through upstream pipeline networks in Norway. The request was the subject of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ C 376, 6.12.2012 and the EEA Supplement No 68, 6.12.2012). The initial period expires on 7 February 2013. Given that the Authority considered that additional information is needed in order to make a proper assessment of the request, it sent a request for information to Norway on 25 January 2013. Hence, in accordance with the provisions laid down in the second sentence of Article 30(6), the period allowed to the Authority to take a decision on this request is extended by 3 months. The final period for the Authority to take a decision therefore expires on 7 May 2013.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013050EN.01000701.xml










21.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 50/7





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 February 2013
2013/C 50/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3370




JPY


Japanese yen


125,09




DKK


Danish krone


7,4604




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87330




SEK


Swedish krona


8,4297




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2347




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4065




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,393




HUF


Hungarian forint


291,31




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6997




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1569




RON


Romanian leu


4,3785




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3792




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2961




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3567




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3678




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5972




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6540




KRW


South Korean won


1 442,83




ZAR


South African rand


11,8659




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3401




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5915




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 940,94




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1400




PHP


Philippine peso


54,426




RUB


Russian rouble


40,2302




THB


Thai baht


39,869




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6145




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9117




INR


Indian rupee


72,3010






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.