do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-116/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, contract terms, loan, mortgage








C_2013171EN.01001001.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume
(Case C-116/13)
2013/C 171/18
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Banco de Valencia SA

Defendant: Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

Questions referred







1.


Does the Spanish mortgage enforcement process comply with Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) in so far as it does not accept, as a precondition for deciding whether or not to order enforcement, judicial review of the court’s own motion of a clause for acceleration of the loan, at the request of the bank alone, which is considered unfair in itself and in the specific way it is applied to this case, that clause being indispensable for making that privileged means of enforcement available to a professional lender?










2.


Again having regard to Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, what must be the scope of the court’s intervention regarding that clause when it has to direct that enforcement is to take place in the mortgage enforcement process?










3.


Can a contractual clause which enables the lending financial institution unilaterally to cancel the loan agreement on totally objective grounds, some of which have no connection with the loan agreement itself and, in the circumstances at issue in these proceedings, because of the failure to pay four monthly mortgage instalments, be regarded as unfair, both in itself and in the manner in which it is specifically applied to this case, in the light of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13/EEC and points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex thereto?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-136/13: Action brought on 11 March 2013 — Hanwha SolarOne and Others v Parliament and Others
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, dumping, import (EU), market economy, originating product, principle of legal certainty, solar energy, third country








C_2013123EN.01002202.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/22





Action brought on 11 March 2013 — Hanwha SolarOne and Others v Parliament and Others
(Case T-136/13)
2013/C 123/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co. Ltd (Qidong, China); Hanwha SolarOne Technology Co. Ltd (Lianyungang, China); Hanwha SolarOne Solar Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China); et Hanwha Solar Electric Power Engineering Co. Ltd (Qidong) (represented by: F. Graafsma, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344/1), insofar as it was applied to the applicants;










—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 3 January 2013 by which it refused to consider the applicants’ market economy treatment (MET) claims; and










—


Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law.
The applicants request the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 insofar as it applies to the applicants and applicants’ MET claims submitted to the European Commission, as required under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, in the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in the People’s Republic of China (Notice of Initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 6 September 2012, OJ C 269/5). The applicants also request the annulment of the decision of 3 January 2013 in which the Commission refused to consider the applicants’ MET claims submitted in the above-mentioned investigation.
The applicants submit that Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 decision, and the 3 January decision stating that the Commission would not consider the applicants’ MET claims, frustrate the legitimate expectations of the applicants and are applied retroactively to the detriment of the applicants without valid justifications. As a result, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision, manifestly violate the basic principles of legal certainty and good faith.
Case C-114/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, pension scheme, retirement conditions








C_2013147EN.01001202.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
(Case C-114/13)
2013/C 147/22
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Theodora Hendrika Bouman

Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Question referred

Is the part of the AOW benefit which is paid to a Netherlands resident and which is based on an insurance period during which that Netherlands resident, simply by making an application, may refrain from joining the Netherlands scheme and thus from paying the premium, and in fact did so for a limited period, to be regarded as a benefit which is awarded on the basis of a voluntary or optional continued insurance within the meaning of Article 46a(3)(c) of Regulation 1408/71, (1) so that no account may be taken of it when applying the provision against overlapping as laid down in Article 52(1)(1) of the Belgian Koninklijk Besluit van 21 december 1967 tot vaststelling van het algemeen reglement betreffende het rust- en overlevingspensioen voor werknemers.


(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).
Case T-110/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — No urgency — Weighing up of the interests involved)
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, capital movement, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2013147EN.01001803.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/18





Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council
(Case T-110/12 R)
(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - No urgency - Weighing up of the interests involved)
2013/C 147/33
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García and V. Piessevaux, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of (i) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) in so far as the applicant’s name was listed in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) in so far as they concern the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-552/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — North Drilling v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, abuse of power, equal treatment, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice








C_2013141EN.01001901.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/19





Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — North Drilling v Council
(Case T-552/12 R)
(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)
2013/C 141/33
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, Agents)

Re:

Application for a stay in the enforcement, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as the applicant’s name was entered in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
2013/127/EU: Council Decision of 11 March 2013 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Central Bank of Cyprus
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cyprus, accountant, central bank




L_2013070EN.01000601.xml










14.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 70/6








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 11 March 2013
         
amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Central Bank of Cyprus
(2013/127/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to Article 27.1 thereof,


Having regard to Recommendation ECB/2013/3 of the European Central Bank of 4 February 2013 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Central Bank of Cyprus (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.












(2)


The mandate of the current external auditors of the Central Bank of Cyprus will expire after the audit for the financial year 2012. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2013.












(3)


The Central Bank of Cyprus has selected KPMG Limited as its external auditors for the financial years 2013 to 2017.












(4)


The Governing Council of the ECB recommended that KPMG Limited be appointed as the external auditors of the Central Bank of Cyprus for the financial years 2013 to 2017.












(5)


It is appropriate to follow the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB and to amend Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 1(14) of Decision 1999/70/EC is replaced by the following:

‘14.   KPMG Limited is hereby approved as the external auditors of the Central Bank of Cyprus for the financial years 2013 to 2017.’.



Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification.


Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the European Central Bank.




Done at Brussels, 11 March 2013.


For the Council


The President

E. GILMORE
            





(1)  
            OJ C 37, 9.2.2013, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 69.
Case F-131/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, facsimile, indemnification, lawyer, pension scheme








C_2013147EN.01003503.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/35





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-131/12)
(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
2013/C 147/68
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the refusal to pay compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been retired, together with a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay his own costs.
Case T-150/13: Action brought on 11 March 2013 — Ziegler Relocation v Commission
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, contractual liability








C_2013147EN.01002202.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/22





Action brought on 11 March 2013 — Ziegler Relocation v Commission
(Case T-150/13)
2013/C 147/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ziegler Relocation SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart and A. Bailleux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


join the present action to Case T-539/12;










—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;










—


hold that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability as regards the applicant;










—


order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 112 872,50 per year from 11 March 2008, together with interest until payment in full;










—


order the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The damage in respect of which the applicant seeks compensation from the European Union concerns the loss of earnings which it claims to have suffered since the adoption of the Commission’s decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services as a result of the practice of European Union officials to request cover quotes in the context of removals the costs of which are reimbursed in accordance with the status of European Union officials has not ceased. The applicant’s refusal to respond favourably to such requests has the effect of removing it from the markets concerned, to the extent that it no longer supplies removal services to more than a very limited number of officials of the European institutions. It is a failure on the part of the European Union to fulfil its duty of care which is the cause of the loss thus suffered by the applicant.
Case T-27/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Elan v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery from the beneficiary — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, domestic market, reimbursement of aid








C_2013129EN.01002101.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/21





Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Elan v Commission
(Case T-27/13 R)
(Interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery from the beneficiary - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
2013/C 129/42
Language of the case: Slovene

Parties


Applicant: Elan, proizvodnja športnih izdelkov, d.o.o. (Begunje na Gorenjskem, Slovenia) (represented by: P. Pensa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Kocjan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2012) 6345 final of 19 September 2012 on the measures taken in favour of the group Elan d.o.o. (SA.26379 (C 13/2010) (ex NN 17/2010))

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case F-17/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, facsimile, illness, indemnification, lawyer








C_2013147EN.01003402.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/34





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-17/12) (1)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
2013/C 147/64
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have sustained as a result of the excessive duration of the procedure for recognising the serious nature of the illness from which he suffered.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Marcuccio is order to pay his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 33.
Case T-89/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Calestep v ECHA (Application for interim measures — Fees and charges payable to ECHA — Reduced fees granted to small enterprises — Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision ordering the recovery of the uncollected amount of the total fees payable — Application for suspension of operation of the decision — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: small business, tax, tax relief








C_2013129EN.01002102.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/21





Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Calestep v ECHA
(Case T-89/13 R)
(Application for interim measures - Fees and charges payable to ECHA - Reduced fees granted to small enterprises - Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision ordering the recovery of the uncollected amount of the total fees payable - Application for suspension of operation of the decision - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 129/43
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Calestep (Estepa, Spain) (represented by: E. Cabezas Mateos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and C. Jacquet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the payment reminders of 23 January and 8 February 2013 addressed by ECHA to the applicant on the ground that it did not meet the conditions to benefit from the reduction of fees provided for small enterprises.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.