do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-113/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 March 2013 — ASL n. 5 ‘Spezzino’ and Others v San Lorenzo Società Cooperativa Sociale, Croce Verde Cogema Cooperativa Sociale Onlus
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, health service, interpretation of the law, land transport, redemption, services contract, voluntary organisation








C_2013156EN.01002001.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 March 2013 — ASL n. 5 ‘Spezzino’ and Others v San Lorenzo Società Cooperativa Sociale, Croce Verde Cogema Cooperativa Sociale Onlus
(Case C-113/13)
2013/C 156/31
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: ASL n. 5 «Spezzino», A.N.P.A.S. Associazione Nazionale Pubblica Assistenza — Comitato Regionale Liguria, Regione Liguria

Respondents: San Lorenzo Società Cooperativa Sociale, Croce Verde Cogema Cooperativa Sociale Onlus

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU, 105 TFEU and 106 TFEU preclude a provision of national law under which ambulance services are awarded, on a preferential basis, to voluntary associations, the Italian Red Cross and other authorised public institutions or bodies, albeit pursuant to agreements which provide only for reimbursement of expenditure that is actually incurred?










2.


Does European Union law on public tendering — in the case under examination concerning excluded contracts and the general principles of free competition, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality — preclude national legislation which permits the direct awarding of ambulance services on the ground that a framework contract such as that contested in this case, which provides for the reimbursement also of fixed and ongoing costs, must be classified as having a pecuniary interest?
Case T-140/13: Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Scheepsbouw Nederland v Commission
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, amortisation, hire purchase, infringement of EU law








C_2013147EN.01002201.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/22





Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Scheepsbouw Nederland v Commission
(Case T-140/13)
2013/C 147/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Scheepsbouw Nederland (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 November 2012 in case SA.34736 (Early depreciation of certain assets acquired through a financial leasing), published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 December 2012 (OJ 2012 C 384, p. 2); and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(2) and 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1).
In this respect, the applicant argues that, in view of the circumstances of the case, as well as the insufficient and incomplete nature of the substantive examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination procedure, there is sufficient evidence of the existence of serious difficulties as to the assessment of the proposed measure. The Commission was therefore not properly able to conclude, following its preliminary examination, that the measure in question was not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission had no choice but to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)
Case C-532/12: Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, award of contract, common security and defence policy, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, periodic penalty payment, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2013129EN.01001301.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/13





Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-532/12) (1)

2013/C 129/24
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case T-498/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2013 — Mayer Naman v OHIM — Daniel e Mayer (David Mayer) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark David Mayer — Earlier national word mark DANIEL & MAYER MADE IN ITALY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Request for proof of genuine use made for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Out of time — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013114EN.01003201.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/32





Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2013 — Mayer Naman v OHIM — Daniel e Mayer (David Mayer)
(Case T-498/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark David Mayer - Earlier national word mark DANIEL & MAYER MADE IN ITALY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Request for proof of genuine use made for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Out of time - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2013/C 114/50
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: David Mayer Naman (Rome, Italy) (represented initially by S. Sutti, S. Cazzaniga and V. Fedele, and subsequently by V. Fedele and M. Spolidoro, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Daniel e Mayer Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Andreolini and A. Parini, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2010 (Case R 413/2009-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Daniel e Mayer Srl and Mr David Mayer Naman.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr David Mayer Naman to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 218/2013 of 8 March 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Cabrito Transmontano (PDO))
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, designation of origin, fresh meat, product designation








L_2013069EN.01002101.xml










13.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 69/21








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 218/2013
of 8 March 2013
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Cabrito Transmontano (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).












(2)


By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined Portugal’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Cabrito Transmontano’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/1996 (3).












(3)


Since the amendments in question are not minor, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), as required by Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the amendments should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 March 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(3)  
            OJ L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 19.

(4)  
            OJ C 122, 27.4.2012, p. 20.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.1.   Fresh meat and offal

PORTUGAL
Cabrito Transmontano (PDO)
Corrigendum to Council Decision of 13 November 2012 appointing the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee ( OJ C 360, 22.11.2012 )
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: appointment of members, scientific committee (EU), technical committee (EU)








C_2013068EN.01005401.xml










8.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/54





Corrigendum to Council Decision of 13 November 2012 appointing the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 360 of 22 November 2012
)
2013/C 68/07
On pages 2 and 3, the Sole Article, the following name is inserted in the list of members:

‘Jørgen KJEMS’.
Case F-21/13: Action brought on 8 March 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, rights of civil servants, transfer of pension rights








C_2013156EN.01005501.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/55





Action brought on 8 March 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-21/13)
2013/C 156/101
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Greco, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme on the basis of the proposed calculation applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought







—


Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials unlawful;










—


In consequence, annul the decision of the Secretariat General of the Council of 23 May 2012 establishing a proposal for the transfer of pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations on the basis of the GIP of 11.10.2011 to the applicant as signed by her on 19 July 2012;










—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.
Case T-139/13: Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Eltek/OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Germany, electronics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013147EN.01002101.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/21





Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Eltek/OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)
(Case T-139/13)
2013/C 147/38
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Eltek SpA (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eltec Elektronik AG (Mainz, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Board of Appeal’s decision of 7 January 2013 (as rectified by corrigendum of 22 January 2013) notified and received on 10 January 2013 in Case R 511/2012-1, pertaining to opposition proceedings No B 992 851, and application for Community trade mark registration no. 4 368 064, by reason of the full satisfaction of all the requirements for valid registration of each product;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs with regard to the proceedings before the Court and order the opponent to pay the costs with regard to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELTEK’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 4 368 064

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: German trade mark and International registration ‘ELTEC’, designating the Benelux, Spain, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially dismissed the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and rejected the Community trade mark applied for with respect to certain goods of class 9

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013068EN.01001501.xml










8.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/15





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 March 2013
2013/C 68/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3010




JPY


Japanese yen


122,80




DKK


Danish krone


7,4546




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86500




SEK


Swedish krona


8,2940




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2318




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4165




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,510




HUF


Hungarian forint


299,50




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7005




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1512




RON


Romanian leu


4,3550




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3407




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2685




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3422




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0920




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5704




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6229




KRW


South Korean won


1 415,45




ZAR


South African rand


11,9340




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0926




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5905




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 612,44




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0430




PHP


Philippine peso


53,020




RUB


Russian rouble


40,0300




THB


Thai baht


38,705




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5612




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6541




INR


Indian rupee


71,0510






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-112/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2013 — A v B and Others
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, application of EU law, control of constitutionality, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, jurisdiction








C_2013226EN.01000202.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 March 2013 — A v B and Others
(Case C-112/13)
(2013/C 226/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: A

Applicants and respondents in the appeal on a point of law: B and Others

Questions referred







1.


In the case of rules of procedural law under which the ordinary courts called upon to decide on the substance of cases are also required to examine whether legislation is unconstitutional but are not empowered to repeal legislation generally, this being reserved for a specially organised constitutional court, does the ‘principle of equivalence’ in the implementation of European Union law mean that, where legislation infringes Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the CFR’), the ordinary courts are also required, in the course of the proceedings, to request the constitutional court to set aside the legislation generally, and cannot simply refrain from applying that legislation in the particular case concerned?










2.


Is Article 47 of the CFR to be interpreted as precluding a procedural rule under which a court which does not have international jurisdiction appoints a representative in absentia for a party whose place of domicile cannot be established and that representative can then, by ‘entering an appearance’, confer binding international jurisdiction on that court?










3.


Is Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘a defendant enters an appearance’, within the meaning of that provision, only where that procedural act was carried out by the defendant himself or by a legal representative authorised by him, or does the foregoing obtain without restriction also in the case of a representative in absentia appointed under the law of the Member State in question?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint CHAP(2012) 00592
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, complaint to the Commission, gender equality, pension scheme








C_2013068EN.01005301.xml










8.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/53





Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint CHAP(2012) 00592
2013/C 68/06






1.


The European Commission has received a series of complaints in which it is alleged that the recent pension reform in Italy, introduced by Law No 214 of 22 December 2011, is in breach of EU law on gender equality because it sets a different pensionable age for men and women, and, more generally, discriminates between workers.










2.


The Commission has registered and will continue to register these letters under reference CHAP(2012) 592.










3.


Given the significant number of complaints it has received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to 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 EU anti-discrimination law in the field of pensions and social security and in particular of Directive 79/7/EEC and Directive 2006/54/EC. It is also being discussed with the Italian authorities in the EUPilot procedure under reference 3724/12/JUST.










5.


The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of this examination and discussion, and of any follow-up action that the Commission may decide to take.