do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-190/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Antonio Márquez Somohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract staff, job security, severance pay, teacher, temporary employment, university, work contract








C_2013189EN.01000403.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Antonio Márquez Somohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra
(Case C-190/13)
2013/C 189/08
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Antonio Márquez Somohano

Defendant: Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Questions referred







1.


Must clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions such as Articles 48 and 53 of Ley Orgánica 6/2001 de Universidades of 21 December 2001, which do not provide for a maximum duration for successive employment contracts, in circumstances where there are no domestic legal measures in place to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts for university lecturers?










2.


Must the definition of ‘permanent worker’ set out in clause 3 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as precluding a provision such as the second paragraph of additional provision 15(1) of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores which states that the employment contract of such a worker may be terminated where the contracting authority fills the post occupied?










3.


In view of the fact that under domestic law it is deemed an appropriate measure, for the purposes of preventing and punishing the misuse of temporary employment contracts in the private sector, for workers that are considered to have a contract of indefinite duration to be entitled to receive compensation where the contract is terminated for a reason unrelated to the individual worker concerned, and that no equivalent measure exists in the public sector, is it an appropriate measure within the terms of clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC for government employees with contracts of indefinite duration to be given the same right to receive compensation as is laid down by law in respect of workers having contracts of indefinite duration in the private sector?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Case C-194/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Esso Italiana srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, free competition, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, road safety, road transport








C_2013207EN.01000802.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Esso Italiana srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
(Case C-194/13)
2013/C 207/14
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Esso Italiana srl

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred







1.


Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (under Article 4(3) TEU, Article 101 TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU) compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?










2.


Are such limitations of those principles justifiable — and, if so, under what conditions — in the light of the need to safeguard the public interest in road traffic safety and, in terms of that functional consideration, is there a proper place for the fixing of minimum operating costs as provided for under Article 83a of Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (as subsequently amended and supplemented)?










3.


Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector?
Case T-212/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Madaus/OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013178EN.01001201.xml










22.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/12





Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Madaus/OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)
(Case T-212/13)
2013/C 178/22
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Madaus GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and A. Späth, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Overturn the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2013 (Case R 27/2012-1);










—


Order OHIM to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;










—


In the event that Indena S.p.A. joins in the appeal as an intervening party, order the intervening party to bear its own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECHINAMID’ for goods in class 1 — Community trade mark application No 6 830 103

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Greek word mark ‘ECHINACIN’ for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-211/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Eni v Commission
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, judicial proceedings, sanction (EU)








C_2013156EN.01005301.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/53





Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Eni v Commission
(Case T-211/13)
2013/C 156/99
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible;










—


annul the contested measures;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action contests the Commission’s decision of 26 February 2013 to reopen the procedure (C(2013) 1200 final) and the statement of objections of 26 February 2013 (C(2013) 1199) relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, adopted in Case AT.40032-BR/ESBR.
In support of the application, Eni alleges lack of competence, arguing that the Commission cannot reopen the procedure in order to amend the decision adopted in Case BR-ESBR in 2006 and, at the same time, to adopt a decision re-imposing the increase in the fine for repeated infringements.
Eni submits that in the judgment of 13 July 2011 (Case T-39/07), in addition to annulling in part the 2006 BR-ESBR decision on the basis that the Commission had failed to make a correct assessment of the aggravating circumstance of repeated infringement, the General Court exercised its jurisdiction in relation to the merits — under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 — by re-determining the amount of the fine and substituting its own assessment for that made by the Commission. In addition to being in breach of those findings, the contested measures are also contrary to Article 266 TFEU, to the principle governing the attribution of powers and ensuring institutional balance, referred to in Article 13 TFEU, as well as to the fundamental right to fair legal process laid down in Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 7 ECHR.
Eni also claims that, contrary to the assertions made by the Commission, the General Court did not merely find that there had been a procedural defect in the Commission’s application of the concept of repeated infringement in the 2006 BR-ESBR decision; the Commission’s action is therefore based on a wholly erroneous legal and factual premiss and, from that point of view, too, is contrary to Article 7 ECHR.
Case F-1/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 April 2013 — Andersen v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Officials — Retirement on grounds of invalidity — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, disability insurance, pension scheme








C_2013225EN.01008601.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/86





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 April 2013 — Andersen v Court of Auditors
(Case F-1/12) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Retirement on grounds of invalidity - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
2013/C 225/198
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Henrik Andersen (Hals, Denmark) (represented by: S. Rodriguez. A. Blot and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy. N. Scafarto and B. Schäfer, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors refusing to pay compensation for the loss purportedly suffered following the applicant’s retirement on grounds of invalidity.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2.


Mr Andersen is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 29.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 338/2013 of 15 April 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 determining the intervention centres for cereals in view of the accession of Croatia to the European Union
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, accession to the European Union, cereals, intervention agency, intervention policy, storage








L_2013106EN.01000701.xml










16.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 106/7








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 338/2013
of 15 April 2013
         
amending Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 determining the intervention centres for cereals in view of the accession of Croatia to the European Union


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Croatia, and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,


Having regard to the Act of Accession of Croatia, and in particular Article 50 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 of 3 December 2010 determining the intervention centres for cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1173/2009 (1) designates, in its Annex, the intervention centres for cereals.












(2)


In view of Croatia’s accession, intervention centres for cereals must be determined for this country and included in the list established by Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010.












(3)


In accordance with Article 55(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention (2), Croatia has communicated to the Commission the list of its intervention centres for cereals and the list of storage premises (3) attached to those centres which have been approved as fulfilling the minimum standards required by EU legislation.












(4)


Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly, and the list of storage premises attached thereto should be published on the internet, together with all the information required by the operators involved in public intervention,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force subject to, and on the date of, the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Croatia.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 April 2013.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 318, 4.12.2010, p. 10.

(2)  
            OJ L 349, 29.12.2009, p. 1.

(3)  The addresses of the storage premises of the intervention centres are available on the European Commission website EUROPA/agriculture http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cereals/legislation/index_en.htm




ANNEX
In the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1125/2010, the following ‘CROATIA’ section is inserted after the section entitled ‘FRANCE’.


                     ‘
                     CROATIA


Požega
               ’
Case T-217/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Saf-Holland v OHIM (INTEGRAL)
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013189EN.01002502.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/25





Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Saf-Holland v OHIM (INTEGRAL)
(Case T-217/13)
2013/C 189/53
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Saf-Holland GmbH (Bessenbach, Germany) (represented by M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2013 in Case R 2087/2011-1;










—


Amend the contested decision in such a way that the preceding refusal decision of OHIM of 14 September 2011 is annulled;










—


In the alternative, amend the contested decision in such a way that the registration procedure is continued;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark INTEGRAL for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 9 508 466

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-222/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: invitation to tender, project evaluation, tendering








C_2013164EN.01002401.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/24





Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission
(Case T-222/13)
2013/C 164/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Business and Strategies in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Bihain, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded and, consequently, annul the contested act;










—


therefore, order the European Commission to admit the applicant to the short-list of candidates invited to participate in the tendering procedure in the framework of contract EuropeAid/132633/C/SER/multi, lot No 7: Governance and home affairs;










—


order the European Commission to pay all the costs.





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 a breach of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of good administration, in particular in that it imposes a duty of consistency, of the principle of audi alteram partem, and an infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations and of the principle of fairness when the Commission, on the first occasion, in its letter of 2 April 2013 following its decision of 15 February 2013, rejected as non-eligible project No 25, proposed by the applicant to fulfil the technical capacity criterion, thus bringing the number of projects eligible as reference projects below the minimum necessary.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of point 2.4.11.1.3, second subparagraph, of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions, and of clarification A 47 of the procurement notice, as the Commission incorrectly interpreted the concept of reference projects eligible to fulfil the selection criterion concerning the technical capacity of the candidate.
Case C-192/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, financial aid, high-speed transport, rail transport








C_2013178EN.01000501.xml










22.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/5





Appeal brought on 15 April 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission
(Case C-192/13 P)
2013/C 178/09
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission.










—


Annul Commission Decision C (2011) 1023 final of 18 February 2011 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the project stages: ‘Supply and assembly of track materials on the high-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Madrid-Lleida’ (CCI No 1999.ES.16.C.PT.001); ‘High-speed railway line Madrid-Barcelona. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform, 1st phase)’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.001); ‘High-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Access to Zaragoza’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.003); ‘High-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell. Subsection X-A (Olérdola-Avinyonet del Penedés)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.007) and ‘New high-speed railway access to Levante. Subsection La Gineta-Albacete (Platform)’ (CCI No 2004.ES.16.C.PT.014).










—


Order the respondent to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments



Error of law with respect to the effects of the period of time referred to in Article H(2) of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94

 (1)

of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund
. After the expiry of the period referred to, the Commission may no longer adopt any financial correction measures and, therefore, it is obliged to make payment and the correction applied is unlawful.


Error of law in relation to the concept of an award of a contract within the meaning of Council Directive 93/38/EEC

 (2)

of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
. Points (e) and (f) of Article 20(2) of Directive 93/38 do not apply generally to any amendments whatsoever to public contracts agreed during their execution stage, but to substantive amendments only. A substantive amendment such as to constitute a new award of a contract can be regarded as having arisen only when the conditions laid down in the judgment in Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur
 (3) are met.


(1)  OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84


(3)  Case C-454/06 Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur [2008] ECR I-4401
Case T-214/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, data protection, dissemination of EU information, personal data, provision of documents








C_2013171EN.01003501.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/35





Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission
(Case T-214/13)
2013/C 171/65
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rainer Typke (Hasbergen, Germany) (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 February 2013 denying applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — in the procedure GESTDEM 2012/3258;










—


Annul the implied negative decision of the European Commission of 13 March 2013 on applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the procedure GESTDEM 2013/0068;










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as of other provisions of the said regulation, as:






—


The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s request would not fall within the realm of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, implying the creation of new documents instead of the access to existing ones, is unfounded;










—


The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be disproportionate, therefore inadmissible, even if considering the possibility of granting partial access, is unfounded;










—


The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need not to disclose third parties’ personal data is unfounded; and










—


The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Selection Board, and by the need to protect the latter’s decision making process, is unfounded.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)