do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-94/10: Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany GmbH and Others v ECHA (REACH — Identification of anthracene oil as a substance of very high concern — Actions for annulment — Actionable measure — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Proportionality)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, market approval, product safety








C_2013114EN.01003002.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/30





Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany GmbH and Others v ECHA
(Case T-94/10) (1)

(REACH - Identification of anthracene oil as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
2013/C 114/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Deza, a.s., (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Bilbaí (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany)) (represented by: initially by K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana,)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 13 January 2010, to identify anthracene oil (EC No 292-602-7) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, in accordance with Article 59 of REACH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA and Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case T-370/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Poland v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Benchmarks to be applied to calculate the allocation of emission allowances — Equal treatment — Proportionality)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, approximation of laws, environmental protection, equal treatment, greenhouse gas, principle of proportionality








C_2013114EN.01003401.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/34





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-370/11) (1)

(Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Benchmarks to be applied to calculate the allocation of emission allowances - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
2013/C 114/54
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna, C. Herma and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, K. Herrmann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
Case T-137/13: Action brought on 7 March 2013 — Saferoad RRS v OHIM (MEGARAIL)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, road safety, trade-mark law








C_2013129EN.01002701.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/27





Action brought on 7 March 2013 — Saferoad RRS v OHIM (MEGARAIL)
(Case T-137/13)
2013/C 129/52
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Saferoad RRS GmbH (Weroth, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2013 in Case R 2536/2011-4 and the Examiner’s decision of 23 November 2011 in so far as the mark was rejected;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MEGARAIL’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 19 and 37

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for three EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2013 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 ( OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006 , p. 1))
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2013066EN.01002701.xml










7.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/27





The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for three EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2013
(Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1))
2013/C 66/07
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of the Authority’s State aid Guidelines as amended by the Authority’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To get the applicable reference rate, appropriate margins have to be added in accordance with the State aid Guidelines. For the discount rate this means that the appropriate margin of 100 basis points has to be added to the base rate. The recovery rate will also normally be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate as foreseen in the Authority’s Decision No 789/08/COL of 17 December 2008 amending the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (published in OJ L 340, 22.12.2010, p. 1 and in the EEA Supplement No 72/2010, 22.12.2010, p. 1). Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.1.2013-


6,14


0,34


2,39
Case T-186/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Schönberger v Parliament (Action for annulment — Right to petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Petition declared admissible — Decision concluding the petition procedure — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, petition, powers of the institutions (EU), transparency in decision-making








C_2013114EN.01003301.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/33





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Schönberger v Parliament
(Case T-186/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Right to petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Petition declared admissible - Decision concluding the petition procedure - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 114/52
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 25 January 2011 which concluded the examination of the petition submitted by the applicant on 2 October 2010 (petition No 1188/2010), which had been declared admissible.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
Case T-607/11: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission (Action for annulment — Request from the French competition authority seeking to obtain the transmission of certain documents contained in the Commission’s file relating to competition proceedings concerning the European market for consumer detergents — Use in the context of national proceedings concerning the French detergents sector — Disappearance of the legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, access to EU information, competition, originating product, polishing and scouring preparations








C_2013129EN.01002001.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/20





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission
(Case T-607/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Request from the French competition authority seeking to obtain the transmission of certain documents contained in the Commission’s file relating to competition proceedings concerning the European market for consumer detergents - Use in the context of national proceedings concerning the French detergents sector - Disappearance of the legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 129/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) and Henkel France (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: R. Polley, T. Kuhn, F. Brunet and É. Paroche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and P. J. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, Agent)

Re:

Application for: (1) annulment of the decision allegedly contained in a Commission letter of 30 September 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — and Case 09/0007 F) whereby the latter refused a request by the French competition authority to send it, for the purposes of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, certain documents produced in Case COMP/39.579; and (2) an order that the Commission authorise the applicants to rely on the documents in question in proceedings before the French competition authority and any other appropriate measure.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the first head of claim of the action, seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission allegedly contained in its letter of 30 September 2011 to the French competition authority.










2.


The action is dismissed as to the remainder.










3.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Unilever PLC and Unilever NV.










4.


The applicants, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and Henkel France, are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those incurred in the application for interim measures in Case T-607/11 R. The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case C-182/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága, (Community Customs Code — Article 137 — Regulation implementing the Customs Code — Article 561(2) — Conditions for total relief from import duties — Importation into a Member State of a vehicle whose owner is established in a third country — Private use)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, customs regulations, import (EU), interpretation of the law, tariff exemption, vehicle








C_2013123EN.01000702.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/7





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága,
(Case C-182/12) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 137 - Regulation implementing the Customs Code - Article 561(2) - Conditions for total relief from import duties - Importation into a Member State of a vehicle whose owner is established in a third country - Private use)
2013/C 123/10
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gábor Fekete

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Interpretation of Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Total relief from import duty — Private use of a means of transport — Concept of employment relationship — Importation into a Member State of a vehicle belonging to a foundation established in a third country by the chairman of the board of that foundation — Authorisation of the foundation in question for the chairman of the board to use and drive the vehicle concerned

Operative part of the judgment

Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the total relief from import duties provided for by that provision for a means of transport used privately by a person established in the customs territory of the European Union may be granted only if such use is provided for in a contract of employment between that person and the owner of the vehicle established outside that territory.


(1)  OJ C 217, 21.07.2012.