do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-156/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, access to information, international sanctions, ownership, provision of documents, rights of the defence








C_2013147EN.01002301.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/23





Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
(Case T-156/13)
2013/C 147/41
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.71), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p. 55), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,










—


Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits six grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give proper notice, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of the fundamental right to property.
The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council failed to properly identify the applicant as the subject of the decision and regulation and also to properly identify the applicant in its letter of notification, and in any case these acts contained an insufficient statement of reasons. Requests by the applicant to confirm the identification, to expand on the statement of reasons, and for access to documents were not replied to, apart from a brief letter acknowledging receipt. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a front company controlled by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and in any case the Council has not substantiated that control of the applicant by NIOC would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. Finally, by restricting the ability of the applicant to form contracts, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.
Case C-108/11: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — VAT — Reduced rate — Supply of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption, hire of horses and insemination services — Directive 2006/112/EC — Infringement of Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, VAT rate, domestic animal, equidae, infringement of EU law








C_2013141EN.01000302.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/3





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-108/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - VAT - Reduced rate - Supply of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption, hire of horses and insemination services - Directive 2006/112/EC - Infringement of Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110)
2013/C 141/04
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, D. O’Hagan, M. Collins and N. Travers, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.S. Pilczer, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96, 98 (in conjunction with Annex III) and Article 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation applying a reduced VAT rate to supplies of greyhounds and horses not normally intended for the preparation of foodstuffs, to the hire of horses and to certain insemination services

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, in applying a reduced rate of value added tax of 4.8% to supplies of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation of foodstuffs, to the hire of horses and certain insemination services, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;










2.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
Case C-119/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, appeal, civil procedure, civil proceedings, interpretation of the law








C_2013164EN.01000901.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy
(Case C-119/13)
2013/C 164/14
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

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 Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
If the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him, must the defendant respect certain time-limits in bringing his application for review? In that connection, must recourse be had in particular to the scheme established in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006?










3.


Also if Question 1 is answered 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013075EN.01000701.xml










14.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/7





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 March 2013
2013/C 75/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2981




JPY


Japanese yen


124,59




DKK


Danish krone


7,4570




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86780




SEK


Swedish krona


8,2931




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2319




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4430




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,632




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,65




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7012




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1385




RON


Romanian leu


4,3890




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3510




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2573




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3304




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0695




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5730




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6202




KRW


South Korean won


1 433,78




ZAR


South African rand


11,9595




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0667




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5865




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 580,03




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0345




PHP


Philippine peso


52,627




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9200




THB


Thai baht


38,424




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5440




MXN


Mexican peso


16,0835




INR


Indian rupee


70,4950






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-161/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, bank, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2013141EN.01002402.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/24





Action brought on 14 March 2013 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council
(Case T-161/13)
2013/C 141/44
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd (Labuan, Malaysia) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul paragraph I.I.10 of the Annex to Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) in so far as the applicant is concerned;










—


Annul paragraph I.I.10 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) in so far as the applicant is concerned;










—


Order the defendant to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not assist designated entities to violate the provisions of EU regulation on Iran and does not provide financial support to the government of Iran. It is neither being used to channel Iranian oil-related payment. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged Annexes of the Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The Council also failed to apply the correct test.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the Council breaches the procedural requirements to give the adequate reasons in the Annexes of Decision 2012/829/CFSP and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 and to respect the rights of defense and the right to effective judicial protection.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicant violates the principle of proportionality.
Calls for proposals under the 2013 work programme ‘People’ of the seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, education grant, invitation to tender, job mobility








C_2013075EN.01001101.xml










14.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/11





Calls for proposals under the 2013 work programme ‘People’ of the seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities
2013/C 75/05
Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals under the 2013 work programme ‘People’ of the seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013).
Proposals are invited for the following calls. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the relevant European Commission website.

‘People’ specific programme:







Call title


Call identifier




Intra-European fellowships


FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF




International incoming fellowships


FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IIF




International outgoing fellowships


FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IOF




These calls for proposals relate to the 2013 work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2012) 4561 of 9 July 2012.
Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programmes, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals are available through the relevant European Commission website.
Case T-587/08: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bananas — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Information exchange system — Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object — Causal link between the collusion and the conduct of the undertakings on the market — Single infringement — Imputation of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Cooperation — Mitigating circumstances)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition, exchange of information, fine, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, tropical fruit








C_2013123EN.01001501.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/15





Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission
(Case T-587/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in bananas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Information exchange system - Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object - Causal link between the collusion and the conduct of the undertakings on the market - Single infringement - Imputation of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Cooperation - Mitigating circumstances)
2013/C 123/24
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. (George Town, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially B. Meyring, lawyer, and E. Verghese, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Meyring)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Rinne, lawyer, C. Humpe and S. Kon, Solicitors, and C. Vajda QC)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets the amount of the fine imposed under Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) at EUR 8.82 million;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs;










4.


Orders Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Case T-154/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, dumping, import (EU), market economy, originating product, principle of legal certainty, solar energy, third country








C_2013123EN.01002702.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/27





Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission
(Case T-154/13)
2013/C 123/48
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd (Yixing, China) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the appeal admissible;










—


Annul the Commission’s Decision set out in its letter of 3rd January 2013 deciding that the applicants market economy treatment (‘MET’) claim will no longer be considered;










—


Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing and failing to respect the applicant’s rights to the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicant claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactive application of European Union law by unlawfully terminating the applicants’ MET claim thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicants claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.
Case C-240/12: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord Pas De Calais (Request for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, harbour installation, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, waste management








C_2013129EN.01000402.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/4





Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord Pas De Calais
(Case C-240/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 129/07
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Criminal proceedings against

EBS Le relais Nord Pas De Calais

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands — Interpretation of Articles 15 and 26(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) and of Article 2(32) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Concept of transit — Shipment of waste by vessel from one Member State towards a State which does not fall within the scope of application of the OECD Decision — Passage, during the journey, in a port of another Member State

Operative part of the order

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 4 May 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Case T-153/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, dumping, import (EU), market economy, originating product, principle of legal certainty, solar energy, third country








C_2013123EN.01002701.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/27





Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission
(Case T-153/13)
2013/C 123/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Et Solar Industry Ltd (Taizhou City, China); Et Energy Co. Ltd (Taizhou City); and Dotec Electric Co. Ltd (Taizhou City) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Declare the appeal admissible;










—


Annul the Commission’s Decision set out in its letter of 3rd January 2013 deciding that the applicants market economy treatment (‘MET’) claim will no longer be considered;










—


Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing and failing to respect the applicants’ rights to the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicants claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactive application of European Union law by unlawfully terminating the applicants’ MET claim thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicants claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.