do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-415/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy (Public supply contracts — Euratom — Public procurement procedure of the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy — Supply of electrical equipment — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Open procedure — Bid containing reservations — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectation — Proportionality — Conflict of interests — Awarding decision — Action for annulment — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, contractual liability, damages, electrical equipment, indemnification, invitation to tender, joint venture, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, supplies contract








C_2013129EN.01001601.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/16





Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy
(Case T-415/10) (1)

(Public supply contracts - Euratom - Public procurement procedure of the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy - Supply of electrical equipment - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Open procedure - Bid containing reservations - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectation - Proportionality - Conflict of interests - Awarding decision - Action for annulment - Not directly concerned - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability)
2013/C 129/30
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nexans France (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet, J.-F. Le Corre and M. Pigeat, lawyers)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Verpont, acting as Agent, and C. Kennedy-Loest, T. Christopher, Solicitors, J. Derenne, N. Pourbaix, lawyers, and M. Farley, Solicitor)

Re:

Firstly, annulment of the decision rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nexans France to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2013 in Case E-3/12 — The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Labour v Stig Arne Jonsson (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security for migrant workers — Unemployment benefits — Residence in the territory of another EEA State — Condition of actual presence in the State of last employment for entitlement to unemployment benefits)
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, free movement of workers, migrant worker, residence, unemployment insurance








C_2013277EN.01000901.xml










26.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/9





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 20 March 2013
in Case E-3/12
The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Labour v Stig Arne Jonsson
(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security for migrant workers — Unemployment benefits — Residence in the territory of another EEA State — Condition of actual presence in the State of last employment for entitlement to unemployment benefits)
2013/C 277/07
In Case E-3/12 the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Labour v Stig Arne Jonsson — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting lagmannsrett (‘Court of Appeal’) concerning the rules on free movement of workers within the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Per Christiansen, Acting President and Páll Hreinsson, (Judge-Rapporteur) and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 20 March 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Article 71(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 precludes a provision of national law pursuant to which entitlement to payment of unemployment benefits is conditional on actual presence in the EEA State concerned. Such a provision may not be relied upon against the persons referred to in Article 71(1)(b)(i) of that regulation.






(a)


It is not relevant for the answer to this question whether the unemployed person lives in a country near the State of last employment.










(b)


Moreover, in circumstances such as those of the defendant in the main proceedings, it is of no consequence for the application of Article 71(1)(b)(i) that an unemployed person registers as a job seeker and applies for unemployment benefits in his State of residence.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013081EN.01001201.xml










20.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/12





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 March 2013
2013/C 81/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2944




JPY


Japanese yen


123,49




DKK


Danish krone


7,4555




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85585




SEK


Swedish krona


8,3421




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2218




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5205




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,647




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,20




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7015




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1548




RON


Romanian leu


4,4060




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3509




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2475




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3265




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,0455




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5712




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6179




KRW


South Korean won


1 440,51




ZAR


South African rand


11,9332




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0457




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5887




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 580,16




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0409




PHP


Philippine peso


52,675




RUB


Russian rouble


39,9325




THB


Thai baht


37,900




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5637




MXN


Mexican peso


16,0453




INR


Indian rupee


70,3830






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, administrator, job vacancy, medicinal product, statistics








CA2013081EN.01000101.xml










20.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 81/1





RECRUITMENT FOR THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY (LONDON)
(2013/C 81 A/01)

The Agency is responsible for co-ordinating the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use in the European Union (see Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1)). The Agency was established in January 1995. It has many close contacts with the European Commission, the 27 EU Member States, the EEA-EFTA countries and many other groups in government and the private sector.


Further information on the Agency and its activities is readily accessible through the Internet; our web address is http://www.ema.europa.eu

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is organising a selection procedure with a view to drawing up a reserve list for:






 



EMA/AD/344: Statistician, Human Medicines Special Areas Sector, Human medicines development and evaluation Unit (AD 8).





Selected candidates will be included on a reserve list and, depending on the budgetary situation, may be offered a five-year renewable contract in accordance with the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union (OJ L 56, 4.3.1968).

The place of employment shall be London.
Candidates must be nationals of a Member State of the European Union, or of Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway, on condition that they have full rights as a citizen.

The complete conditions and job description should be downloaded from the Agency website:


http://www.ema.europa.eu/htms/general/admin/recruit/recruitnew.htm


Applications have to be submitted electronically using the form available on the Agency website. Deadline for submission of application forms is 20 April 2013 at midnight.


Please note that due to the large number of applications the Agency may receive, when reaching the deadline for submission of applications, the system may have problems to process the large amounts of data. Applicants are therefore advised to send in their application well ahead of the deadline.

If you wish to receive notification of vacancy publications electronically please register online for an RSS feed at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ under ‘RSS news feeds’.
Case T-277/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Café do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Caffè KIMBO — Earlier national word mark BIMBO — Relative grounds for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013129EN.01001902.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/19





Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Café do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)
(Case T-277/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Caffè KIMBO - Earlier national word mark BIMBO - Relative grounds for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 129/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Café do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy) (represented by: M. Mostardini, G. Galimberti and F. Melluci, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2012 (Case R 1017/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Café do Brasil SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bimbo, SA, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
Case T-92/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Andersen v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking DSB — Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions — Temporal application of rules of substantive law)
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, carriage of passengers, domestic market, public sector, rail transport, services contract








C_2013129EN.01001702.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/17





Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Andersen v Commission
(Case T-92/11) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking DSB - Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law)
2013/C 129/33
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent, assisted by K. Lundgaard Hansen and R. Holdgaard, lawyers); and by Danske Statsbaner (DSB) (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08));










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Jørgen Andersen, with the exception of those arising from the interventions;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention;










4.


Orders Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention.






(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
Case C-143/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, mortgage, unfair terms of contract








C_2013171EN.01001501.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA
(Case C-143/13)
2013/C 171/29
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Questions referred

Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) the assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language;
and
given that, under Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of the total cost of the credit to the consumer, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage;
Then:
can the concepts of ‘subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’ referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that such terms — namely the ‘subject-matter’ and/or the ‘price’ of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage — also cover, among the elements which make up the consideration owed to the credit institution, the annual percentage rate of such a credit agreement secured by a mortgage, which is in particular made up of: the interest rate, whether fixed or variable; bank charges; and other costs included and defined in the credit agreement?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
Case C-144/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 March 2013 — VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, delivery, dental medicine, intra-EU trade, medical device, tax exemption








C_2013178EN.01000202.xml










22.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 March 2013 — VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-144/13)
2013/C 178/03
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted to mean that if a national statutory provision, contrary to the Directive, provides for an exemption (in respect of which the right to deduct is excluded), the taxable person is entitled to the right to deduct in reliance on Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive?










2.


Should Article 143(a) and Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (2) be interpreted to mean that the exemptions from VAT contained in those provisions do not apply to the importation and the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer to that question is in the negative, is the application of the exemptions then subject to the condition that the dental prostheses must have been supplied from another country by a dentist or dental technician and/or supplied to a dentist or dental technician?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-489/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Ruse Industry v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Bulgaria in the form of a debt waiver — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — New aid — Distortion of competition — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bulgaria, State aid, domestic market, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition








C_2013129EN.01001802.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/18





Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Ruse Industry v Commission
(Case T-489/11) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Bulgaria in the form of a debt waiver - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Distortion of competition - Obligation to state reasons)
2013/C 129/35
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Ruse Industry (Ruse, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Angelov and S. Panov, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and D. Stefanov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2012/706/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid SA.28903 (C 12/10) (ex N 389/09) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Ruse Industry (OJ 2012 L 320, p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ruse Industry AD to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Case T-571/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CLUB GOURMET — Earlier national figurative mark CLUB DEL GOURMET, EN. El Corte Inglés — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of similarity between the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Arguments and evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013129EN.01001803.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/18





Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET)
(Case T-571/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CLUB GOURMET - Earlier national figurative mark CLUB DEL GOURMET, EN. El Corte Inglés - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity between the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Arguments and evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court)
2013/C 129/36
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1946/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6841 — Goldman Sachs/TPG Lundy/Tulloch Homes Group Limited)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2013081EN.01001301.xml










20.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6841 — Goldman Sachs/TPG Lundy/Tulloch Homes Group Limited)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 81/06






1.


On 13 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 the undertakings The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA) and TPG LundyCo, L.P. (‘TPG Lundy’, Cayman Islands), ultimately controlled by the TPG Group (USA), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of Tulloch Homes Group Limited (‘Tulloch Homes’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Goldman Sachs: the provision of financial services as a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm,










—


TPG Group: a global private investment firm that manages a family of funds that invest in a variety of companies through acquisitions and corporate restructurings,










—


Tulloch Homes: development and construction of residential houses and apartments in the UK.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6841 — Goldman Sachs/TPG Lundy/Tulloch Homes Group Limited, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










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