do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-39/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Di Tullio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Leave for national service — Article 18, first indent, of the Conditions of Employment — Temporal effects of a judgment)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, servant (EU), unpaid leave








C_2013114EN.01003402.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/34





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Di Tullio v Commission
(Case T-39/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Leave for national service - Article 18, first indent, of the Conditions of Employment - Temporal effects of a judgment)
2013/C 114/55
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Roberto di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: initially by S. Woog and T. Bontinck, and subsequently by T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-A-1-0000, and seeking to have that judgment set aside

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Roberto Di Tullio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case C-343/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV, Kamera Express Belgium BVBA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2005/29/EC — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of offering for sale or selling goods at a loss)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, selling at a loss








C_2013129EN.01000501.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/5





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV, Kamera Express Belgium BVBA
(Case C-343/12) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2005/29/EC - National legislation laying down a general prohibition of offering for sale or selling goods at a loss)
2013/C 129/09
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Euronics Belgium CVBA

Defendants: Kamera Express BV, Kamera Express Belgium BVBA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of sales at a loss, without exception, and intended to protect, inter alia, the interests of consumers — Compatibility with Directive 2005/29

Operative part of the order

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a general prohibition of offering for sale or selling at a loss in so far as that provision pursues objectives relating to consumer protection.


(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
Case T-247/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark FAIRWILD — Earlier Community word mark WILD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, foundation, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013114EN.01003302.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/33





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD)
(Case T-247/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark FAIRWILD - Earlier Community word mark WILD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 114/53
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: FairWild Foundation (Weinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Neuwald and S. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1014/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG and FairWild Foundation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FairWild Foundation to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-539/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Acino v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Suspension of the placing on the market and withdrawal of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel — Variation of the authorisation to place on the market — Prohibition from placing medicinal products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, principle of proportionality








C_2013114EN.01003202.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/32





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Acino v Commission
(Case T-539/10) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the placing on the market and withdrawal of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel - Variation of the authorisation to place on the market - Prohibition from placing medicinal products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
2013/C 114/51
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Acino AG, formerly Acino Pharma GmbH (Miesbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Buchner and E. Burk, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by: A. Sipos, G. Wilms, B.-R. Killmann and M. Šimerdová, subsequently by: B.-R. Killmann and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decisions of 29 March and 16 September 2010 relating to the suspension of the placing on the market of medicinal products for human use containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel manufactured on a certain site, to the withdrawal of batches of those medicinal products from the market, to the variation of the authorisation to place those medicinal products on the market and prohibition from placing them on the market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rules that it is not necessary to give judgment on the application to the extent that it is directed against Commission Decisions C(2010) 2204 and C(2010) 2208 of 29 March 2010, and against Commission Decisions C(2010) 6429 and C(2010) 6436 of 16 September 2010;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Acino AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Case C-433/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Action to establish non-contractual liability — Refusal by the Court Registry to act on letters addressed by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court — Article 256(2) TFEU — Request to initiate a review procedure in respect of certain decisions terminating proceedings delivered by the General Court in certain cases on appeal)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contractual liability, disability insurance, indemnification, judicial proceedings








C_2013129EN.01000502.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/5





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case C-433/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action to establish non-contractual liability - Refusal by the Court Registry to act on letters addressed by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court - Article 256(2) TFEU - Request to initiate a review procedure in respect of certain decisions terminating proceedings delivered by the General Court in certain cases on appeal)
2013/C 129/10
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12 Marcuccio v Court of Justice, by which that court dismissed an action seeking damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the Registry’s refusal to act on documents addressed by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court of Justice requesting that a review procedure be initiated in respect of decisions terminating proceedings delivered by the General Court in Cases T-278/07 P, T-114/08 P, T-32/09 P and T-166/09 P.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
Case C-111/13: Action brought on 7 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, domestic market, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, natural gas, periodic penalty payment








C_2013123EN.01001401.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/14





Action brought on 7 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
(Case C-111/13)
2013/C 123/22
Language of the case: Finnish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 2(1), (2), (4) — (18), (20), (22) — (36); the first, second and third sentences of Article 3(3), Article 3(6)(b); Article 12; Article 13(1), (2) and (5); Article 15(1) and (2); the second sentence of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) and (3); Article 25(1); Article 33; the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 36(4) and Article36(6), (8) and the third subparagraph of Article 36(9); Article 39(4)(a) and (b), points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 39(5) and the second subparagraph thereof; Article 40(a) — (e), (g) and (h); Article 41(1)(b), (c) — (f), (h) — (q) and (s) — (u), (4)(b) and (d), (6)(a), (7), (9), (10), (11) and (12); Article 42(1); Article 43(1), (4) and (8); Article 44(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) and Annex I(1)(a), sixth and eighth indents, (b), (d), (f) and (h) and Annex I(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (1) into national law in mainland Finland and the Province of Åland or, in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;










—


impose on the Republic of Finland, pursuant to Article 260(3) of the TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 28 589,60, which is to be applied from the day on which the judgment is delivered in the present case;










—


order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 March 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.
Case C-389/12 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), acquisition of property, appeal, damages, purchase, real property








C_2013171EN.01000902.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/9





Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary
(Case C-389/12 P)
2013/C 171/16
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: Tibor Szarvas (represented by: M. Katona, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: Hungary
By order of 7 March 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.
Case T-64/12: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission (Action for annulment — Request seeking to obtain the transmission to the French competition authority 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 — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, access to information, competition, originating product, polishing and scouring preparations








C_2013129EN.01002002.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-64/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Request seeking to obtain the transmission to the French competition authority 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 - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 129/41
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. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 7 December 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — and Case 09/0007 F) whereby the Commission refused to act on the applicants’ request seeking the transmission to the French competition authority, in the context of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, of several documents produced in Case COMP/39.579, and, secondly, for an order by the General Court requiring the Commission to authorise the applicants to rely on the documents at issue in the proceedings before the French competition authority or before the competent French court in the context of an appeal against the decision of the French competition authority, and for any other measure that the Court deems appropriate.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Unilever PLC and Unilever NV.










3.


Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and Henkel France shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
Case T-95/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Cindu Chemicals and Others v ECHA (REACH — Identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low 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, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, product safety








C_2013114EN.01003101.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/31





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Cindu Chemicals and Others v ECHA
(Case T-95/10) (1)

(REACH - Identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low 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 114/48
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Cindu Chemicals BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands), Deza, a.s. (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark) and Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented 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)
Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Oliver and G. Wilms, subsequently by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, assisted by K. Sawyer, barrister, and thereafter by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 13 January 2010, to identify anthracene oil, anthracene low (EC No 292-604-8) 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 Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);










3.


Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case T-198/09: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — UOP v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, oil industry, restriction on competition








C_2013129EN.01001903.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/19





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — UOP v Commission
(Case T-198/09) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 129/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UOP Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom)) (represented by: B. Hartnett and O. Geiss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Scharf, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: IFP (Rueil Malmaison, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël Baron, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/157/EC of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP Group (C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)) (OJ 2009 L 53, p. 13).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


UOP Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and IFP.






(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.
Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
Date: 2013-03-07
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, common market, control of State aid, environmental protection, large business, small and medium-sized enterprises, tax relief








C_2013066EN.01002501.xml










7.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/25





Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))
2013/C 66/06
PART I







Aid No


GBER 12/12/ENV




EFTA State


Norway




Granting authority


Name


Directorate of Customs and Excise (regional customs authorities)




Address







Postbox 8122 Dep




0032 Oslo




NORWAY








Webpage


http://www.toll.no




Title of the aid measure


Reduced CO2-tax on mineral oil for aviation covered by the European emissions trading scheme




National legal basis (reference to the relevant national official publication)








—


The Norwegian Parliament’s annual decision on the CO2-tax










—


Regulation No 1451 of 11 December 2001 concerning excise duties § 4-6-1 (2)








Web link to the full text of the aid measure


http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/sv/fd-20121127-1217.html
and
http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/fd/td-20011211-1451-029.html




Type of measure


Scheme


Tax reduction




Duration


Scheme


1.1.2012-31.12.2021




Economic sector(s) concerned


Limited to specific sectors — please specify in accordance with NACE Rev. 2


51.10 Passenger air transport
51.21 Freight air transport




Type of beneficiary


SME


Both SME and large enterprises




Large enterprises


Both SME and large enterprises




Budget


Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme


NOK 70 million




Aid instrument (Article 5)


Fiscal measure


Tax reduction




PART II








General objectives (list)


Objectives (list)


Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK


SME — bonuses in %




Aid for environmental protection
(Articles 17-25)


Aid in the form of reductions in environmental taxes
(Article 25)


NOK 70 million