do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-276/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — End-feed fittings and press fittings — Taking and assessment of the evidence — Right to be heard before a court — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, copper, fine, metallurgical industry, principle of proportionality, proof, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2013141EN.01000402.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/4





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
(Case C-276/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - End-feed fittings and press fittings - Taking and assessment of the evidence - Right to be heard before a court - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)
2013/C 141/06
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant Viega GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, R. Sauer, Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-375/06 Viega GmbH & Co. KG v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the copper and copper alloy fittings sector or, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court, of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons — Infringement of the principles of the investigation procedure — Infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case C-545/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG v Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 7(1) and (2) — Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers — Further reduction in the amount of direct payments — Validity — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of non-discrimination)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, equal treatment, interpretation of the law








C_2013141EN.01000702.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG v Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree
(Case C-545/11) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 7(1) and (2) - Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers - Further reduction in the amount of direct payments - Validity - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of non-discrimination)
2013/C 141/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG

Defendant: Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Validity of Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Greater reduction of the amount of direct payments for the years 2009 to 2012 than that provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Principle of legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 in the light of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.










2.


Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 in the light of the principle of non-discrimination.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case C-117/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, literary and artistic property, patents licence








C_2013171EN.01001002.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG
(Case C-117/13)
2013/C 171/19
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Technische Universität Darmstadt

Defendant: Eugen Ulmer KG

Questions referred







1.


Is use subject to purchase or licensing terms within the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) where the rightholder offers to conclude with the establishments referred to therein licensing agreements for the use of works on appropriate terms?










2.


Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC entitle the Member States to confer on the establishments the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if that is necessary in order to make those works available on terminals?










3.


May the rights which the Member States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the works made available there?






(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
Case C-120/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, appeal, civil procedure, civil proceedings, interpretation of the law








C_2013164EN.01000902.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk
(Case C-120/13)
2013/C 164/15
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H.

Defendant: Tetyana Bonchyk

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.


Furthermore, 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 C-555/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Claudio Loreti, Maria Vallerotonda, Attilio Vallerotonda, Virginia Chellini v Comune di Zagarolo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2013-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, division of powers, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2013129EN.01000601.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/6





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Claudio Loreti, Maria Vallerotonda, Attilio Vallerotonda, Virginia Chellini v Comune di Zagarolo
(Case C-555/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
2013/C 129/11
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Claudio Loreti, Maria Vallerotonda, Attilio Vallerotonda, Virginia Chellini

Defendant: Comune di Zagarolo

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — National legislation providing for a division of jurisdiction as between civil and administrative courts based on the distinction between individual rights and legitimate interests — Those concepts not clearly distinguished

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).


(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013