do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-63/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Christoph and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Non-permanent staff — Articles 2, 3a and 3b of the Conditions of employment of other servants (COS) — Temporary staff — Contractual staff — Auxiliary contractual staff — Duration of contract — Article 8 and 88 of the COS — Decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services — Directive 1999/70/EC — Applicability to the institutions)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), work contract, working conditions








C_2013123EN.01002802.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/28





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Christoph and Others v Commission
(Case F-63/08) (1)

(Civil Service - Non-permanent staff - Articles 2, 3a and 3b of the Conditions of employment of other servants (COS) - Temporary staff - Contractual staff - Auxiliary contractual staff - Duration of contract - Article 8 and 88 of the COS - Decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services - Directive 1999/70/EC - Applicability to the institutions)
2013/C 123/50
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Eugen Christoph and Others (Leggiuno, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Curral and D. Martin, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer and J. Hermann, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decisions fixing the conditions of employment of the applicants in so far as the duration of their contract or the extension thereof is limited to a fixed period

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any legal foundation.










2.


The applicants shall bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.










3.


The Council of the European Union is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008, p. 25.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6811 — Innovation Network Corporation of Japan/Renesas Electronics Corporation)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic component, financial services, merger control








C_2013075EN.01000601.xml










14.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6811 — Innovation Network Corporation of Japan/Renesas Electronics Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 75/02
On 5 March 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6811. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), economy, macroeconomics








C_2013075EN.01001201.xml










14.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/12





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
2013/C 75/06
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AD/249/13 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields:






1.


Macroeconomics










2.


Financial economics




The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 75 A of 14 March 2013.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case C-118/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, holiday








C_2013171EN.01001003.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG
(Case C-118/13)
2013/C 171/20
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gülay Bollacke

Defendant: K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice according to which the entitlement to a minimum period of paid annual leave is lost in its entirety on the death of the worker, namely not only the entitlement to release from the obligation to work, which can no longer be implemented, but also the entitlement to payment of remuneration in respect of annual leave?










2.


Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EG to be interpreted as meaning that the entitlement to an allowance in lieu of a minimum period of paid annual leave on termination of the employment relationship attaches to the person of the worker in such a way that that entitlement accrues only to him, in order to enable him to realise at a later date the purposes of rest and leisure associated with the granting of paid annual leave?










3.


Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the protection of the safety and health of workers, the employer is obliged, when organising working time, actually to grant the worker leave by the end of the calendar year or, at the latest, by the end of a carry over period applicable to the employment relationship, regardless of whether or not the worker has submitted an application for leave?






(1)  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).
Case T-588/08: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Dole Food and Dole Germany v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bananas — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object — Information exchange system — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Rights of the defence — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity of the infringement)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, exchange of information, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, tropical fruit








C_2013123EN.01001502.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/15





Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Dole Food and Dole Germany v Commission
(Case T-588/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in bananas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object - Information exchange system - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity of the infringement)
2013/C 123/25
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Dole Food Company, Inc. (Westlake Village, California, United States); and Dole Germany OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and M. Kellerbauer, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Germany OHG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Case C-121/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, appeal, civil procedure, civil proceedings, interpretation of the law








C_2013164EN.01001001.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.
(Case C-121/13)
2013/C 164/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft

Defendant: Xceed Holding Ltd.

Questions referred







1.


Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.
Case T-148/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, Spain, assistant, competition (EU), multilingualism








C_2013123EN.01002601.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/26





Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
(Case T-148/13)
2013/C 123/45
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 — Assistants (AST 3), and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of Spain seeks the annulment of the notice of open competition referred to above for infringement of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 342 TFEU, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59), Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations and the case-law in Case C-566/10 P Italy v Commission.
In support of the action, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the notice of competition in respect of which annulment is sought:






—


discriminates against candidates whose first language is not English, French or German;










—


does not justify objectively and in a concrete manner the limitation of the number of languages in the light of the positions to which the notice relates; the mere general statement relating to ‘the interests of the service’ is not sufficient in that regard;










—


it is not in line with the objective of selecting candidates with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity;










—


infringes the principle of proportionality, in that it does not ensure a balance between the efficiency of the service and the principle of guaranteeing multilingualism in the European Union.
Case T-149/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, Spain, assistant, competition (EU), multilingualism, research








C_2013123EN.01002602.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/26





Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-149/13)
2013/C 123/46
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 — Assistants (AST 3), research sector, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-148/13 Kingdom of Spain v Commission.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6870 — GE/Munich Re/Iberdrola Renovables France) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, multinational enterprise, new technology, renewable energy, secondary sector, tertiary sector, wind energy








C_2013075EN.01001701.xml










14.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6870 — GE/Munich Re/Iberdrola Renovables France)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 75/10






1.


On 7 March 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which General Electric Company (‘GE’, USA) and Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft in München (‘Munich Re’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect joint control of Iberdrola Renovables France S.A.S. (‘Iberdrola Renovables France’, France), by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for GE: a global diversified manufacturing, technology and services company. GE Capital, the relevant GE business unit involved in the proposed concentration, invests globally in energy assets,










—


for Munich Re: a multinational (re)insurance company. MR RENT-Investment GmbH, the relevant subsidiary of Munich Re involved in the proposed concentration, holds investments related to renewable energies and new environmental technologies sectors,










—


for Iberdrola Renovables France: operating on-shore wind farm projects and holding ownership interests in companies operating in the renewable energy business in France.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6870 — GE/Munich Re/Iberdrola Renovables France, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-124/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common fisheries policy, legal basis, sea fish








C_2013156EN.01002101.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/21





Action brought on 14 March 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-124/13)
2013/C 156/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, I. Liukkonen and R. Kaškina, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (1); and










—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament raises a single plea of annulment of the contested Regulation on the grounds that Article 43(3) TFEU is not the appropriate legal basis for the contested Regulation and that it should have been adopted on the basis of Article 43(2) TFEU, as the latter provision gives the European Union legislature the necessary powers for adopting an act with the aim and content of the contested Regulation. The legal basis used excluded Parliament from taking part in the adoption of the act, whereas Article 43(2) TFEU provides for the ordinary legislative procedure to be followed. The erroneous legal basis must lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation.
Under the first limb of its plea Parliament asserts that each multiannual plan, such as that at stake in the present case, as a fish stocks conservation and management tool, forms a whole which only contains provisions in the pursuit of the sustainability and conservation objectives of the CFP and must therefore be adopted in its entirety under Article 43(2) TFEU.
The second limb of Parliament's plea consists of the assertion that the adoption of the contested Regulation separately from the remainder of the Commission proposal constitutes in any event an abuse of the procedure and empties the established case-law on the choice of legal basis according to the centre of gravity of the act, of its contents. Splitting the proposal enabled the Council to artificially choose a separate legal basis for certain elements of the proposed act, whereas these would have been absorbed by the single legal basis of Article 43(2) TFEU had the act been adopted in the form of the initially proposed whole.


(1)  OJ L 352, p. 10
Case C-216/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another Member State — Purely quantitative assessment criteria — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions on imports)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, excise duty, import restriction, infringement of EU law, tobacco industry








C_2013141EN.01000401.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/4





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-216/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another Member State - Purely quantitative assessment criteria - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports)
2013/C 141/05
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 34 TFEU and of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof — National legislation imposing financial sanctions, above certain thresholds, in relation to the holding, for private purposes, of tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another — Purely quantitative assessment criteria — Quantitative restrictions on imports

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by using a purely quantitative criterion to assess whether the holding by private individuals of manufactured tobacco from another Member State is of a commercial nature and by applying that criterion per individual vehicle (and not per person), and in respect of all of the tobacco products in aggregate, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, specifically, under Articles 8 and 9 thereof;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.