do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6859 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Isuzu Motors/Isuzu Motors India Private Limited)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2013092EN.01000302.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6859 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Isuzu Motors/Isuzu Motors India Private Limited)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 92/03
On 20 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 32013M6859. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-184/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2013171EN.01002802.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/28





Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
(Case T-184/13)
2013/C 171/55
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor, QC)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 121/2011-4;










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Community trade mark application No 4 521 084 for products and services in classes 9, 38 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 3 203 411

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Corrigendum to the call for applications for the selection of experts as members of the Commission Expert Group for Bio-based Products ( OJ C 41, 13.2.2013 )
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bio-industry, job vacancy, self-employed person, sustainable development








C_2013092EN.01000801.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/8





Corrigendum to the call for applications for the selection of experts as members of the Commission Expert Group for Bio-based Products
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 41 of 13 February 2013
)
2013/C 92/09
On page 6, point 4:
for:
‘The members will be appointed latest by 15 May 2013.’,
read:
‘The members will be appointed at the latest by 12 June 2013.’;
on page 6, point 5:
for:

‘A letter of motivation, together with the application form (Annex), duly signed by an authorised representative of the applicant legal entity, must be sent to the e-mail address: ENTR-EXPERT-BIOBASED@ec.europa.eu within six weeks following the publication of the call, as attested by a delivery notification.’,

read:

‘A letter of motivation, together with the application form (Annex), duly signed by an authorised representative of the applicant legal entity, must be sent to the e-mail address: ENTR-EXPERT-BIOBASED@ec.europa.eu within 10 weeks following the publication of the call (i.e. the new deadline for the submission of the applications is 24 April 2013), as attested by a delivery notification.’.
Case C-175/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 March 2013 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Estonia, Latvia, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2013156EN.01002403.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 March 2013 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee
(Case C-175/13)
2013/C 156/39
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus (Estonia)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis

Defendant and respondent: Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

Intervener: Eesti Vabariigi Siseministeerium

Questions referred







2.1


Are the Member States taking part in the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013, when setting up the monitoring committee referred to in Articles 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 (1) and Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, (2) required, in accordance with the third sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to agree which court has jurisdiction to hear actions brought against decisions of the monitoring committee and under which law the actions are heard?










2.2


If the answer Question 2.1. is in the affirmative, yet there is no such agreement, is it then consistent with Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 if an action brought against a decision of the monitoring committee is heard on the basis of national law by a court of the Member State of the person who has brought the action?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 1).
Case T-183/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2013171EN.01002801.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/28





Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
(Case T-183/13)
2013/C 171/54
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer and J. Mellor, QC)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 2398/2010-4;










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Community trade mark application No 3 660 065 for services in class 38

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 3 203 411

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6812 — SFPI/Dexia)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, investment company, merger control








C_2013092EN.01000402.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6812 — SFPI/Dexia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 92/05
On 21 February 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 32013M6812. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Winding-up proceedings — Decision to launch winding-up proceedings in respect of EVIMA GROUP AAE (Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2013092EN.01000601.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/6





Winding-up proceedings
Decision to launch winding-up proceedings in respect of EVIMA GROUP AAE
(Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)
2013/C 92/07






Insurance undertaking







EVIMA GROUP AAE




Registered office at Stadiou 5




105 62 Athens




GREECE








Date, entry into force and type of decision


Decision No 63/1 of 8 February 2013 of the Committee for Credit and Insurance Matters of the Bank of Greece to permanently withdraw the operating licence of the company and to wind it up
Entry into force: 8 February 2013




Competent authority


Bank of Greece, Private Insurance Supervisory Division
Address:





Eleftheriou Venizelou 21




102 50 Athens




GREECE








Supervisory authority


Bank of Greece, Private Insurance Supervisory Division
Address:





Eleftheriou Venizelou 21




102 50 Athens




GREECE








Appointed liquidator


Ioannis Germanos
(Winding-up supervisor)
Address:





Omirou 58




106 72 Athens




GREECE








Applicable law


Greek law: Article 3(3), Articles 7 to 9 and Articles 17(a) to (c) of Legislative Decree No 400/1970
Case C-158/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Afghanistan, Netherlands, administrative formalities, family migration, infringement of EU law, right of asylum








C_2013164EN.01001102.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-158/13)
2013/C 164/19
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hamidullah Rajaby

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Questions referred







1.


In the circumstances of the present dispute, in which there appears to be an evident infringement of European Union law which will continue to have consequences in the future, and in which, in the administrative phase, the parties exchanged views on the applicability of Article 14 of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) which they did not address again during the court proceedings, but on which the applicant also did not expressly rely during the court proceedings, is it contrary to European Union law if the court, by reason of the prohibition in national law on initiating a review of its own motion, does not address that issue?










2.


Do the circumstances of the present dispute constitute dependency within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, that is to say, where the family members are a young woman without any education, from Afghanistan, who is accompanied by two children currently of 5½ and 3 years of age who are in her care and in relation to whose care and education she cannot rely on anyone other than her husband and father of the children, and on whose asylum application, moreover, a negative decision has been taken by the defendant because her account was considered to be wholly unbelievable, and that account can be supported by the statements of the applicant and by the (copies of the) documents which he has brought with him?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013092EN.01000501.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 March 2013
2013/C 92/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2768




JPY


Japanese yen


120,30




DKK


Danish krone


7,4528




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84515




SEK


Swedish krona


8,3020




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2174




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4720




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,800




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,12




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7014




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1818




RON


Romanian leu


4,4135




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3271




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2234




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2984




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,9114




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5274




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5888




KRW


South Korean won


1 420,67




ZAR


South African rand


11,8725




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9340




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5950




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 428,01




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9551




PHP


Philippine peso


52,233




RUB


Russian rouble


39,5730




THB


Thai baht


37,410




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5838




MXN


Mexican peso


15,8335




INR


Indian rupee


69,5410






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-29/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: contract, damages, indemnification, servant (EU)








C_2013207EN.01005702.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/57





Action brought on 28 March 2013 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency
(Case F-29/13)
2013/C 207/95
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 30 August 2012 not to renew the applicant’s contract, to end his employment relationship on 30 April 2013 and to require him to take leave;










—


Annul the decision of 26 February 2013 rejecting his request for a renewal of his contract;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs and to pay the applicant EUR 25 000 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm.
Winding-up proceedings — Decision to make a winding-up order in respect of Lemma Europe Insurance Company Limited (Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings )
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Gibraltar, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2013092EN.01000701.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/7





Winding-up proceedings
Decision to make a winding-up order in respect of Lemma Europe Insurance Company Limited

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings
 (1)
)

2013/C 92/08






Insurance undertaking







Lemma Europe Insurance Company Limited




The Tower Office




Marina Bay




GIBRALTAR








Date, entry into force and nature of decision


24 January 2013
Entry into force: 24 January 2013
Winding-up order with appointment of liquidator, permission to disclaim contracts of insurance and reinsurance, and directions for valuation and treatment of consequential claims




Competent authorities







Supreme Court of Gibraltar




Chancery Jurisdiction




277 Main Street




GIBRALTAR








Supervisory authority







Financial Services Commission




Suite 3, Ground Floor




Atlantic Suites




Europort Avenue




PO Box 940




GIBRALTAR








Liquidator appointed







Frederick White




Grant Thornton (Gibraltar) Limited




6A Queensway




PO Box 64




GIBRALTAR




Tel. +350 20045502




Fax +350 20051071




E-mail: lemma@gi.gt.com








Applicable law


Gibraltar
Companies Act 1930
Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Act 2004






(1)  OJ L 110, 20.4.2001, p. 35.
Case C-160/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, delivery, dental medicine, intra-EU trade, medical device, tax exemption








C_2013178EN.01000402.xml










22.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.
(Case C-160/13)
2013/C 178/07
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X B.V.

Question referred

Must Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT for which that provision provides does not apply to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer is no, is the application of the exemption subject to the condition that the dental prostheses are supplied from abroad by a dentist and/or dental technician to a dentist or dental technician?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6877 — Oiltanking GmbH/Gunvor Group Ltd/PT Oiltanking Karimun)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, chemical product, economic concentration, energy-generating product, merger control, petroleum, storage, vegetable oil








C_2013092EN.01000301.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6877 — Oiltanking GmbH/Gunvor Group Ltd/PT Oiltanking Karimun)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 92/02
On 18 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 32013M6877. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6875 — Tennet Offshore/Mitsubishi Corporation/Tennet Offshore 8)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, electrical industry, energy industry, merger control








C_2013092EN.01000401.xml










28.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6875 — Tennet Offshore/Mitsubishi Corporation/Tennet Offshore 8)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 92/04
On 19 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 32013M6875. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.