do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-204/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, company constituted under civil law, consultancy, customers, tax relief








C_2013178EN.01000601.xml










22.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg
(Case C-204/13)
2013/C 178/11
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Saarlouis

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Heinz Malburg

Question referred

Having regard to the principle of tax neutrality, must Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) be interpreted as meaning that a partner in a partnership of tax advisors who acquires from the partnership a portion of its client base for the sole purpose of providing directly thereafter to a newly founded partnership of tax advisors, in which he is the principal partner, a licence to use such client base for commercial purposes and free of charge may be entitled to deduct the input tax arising from the acquisition of the client base?


(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).
Notice of open competitions in the field of public health
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), food safety, public health








C_2013111EN.01001901.xml










18.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/19





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS IN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC HEALTH
2013/C 111/09
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






—


EPSO/AD/250/13 — Administrators (AD 6) — Food safety (policy and legislation)










—


EPSO/AD/251/13 — Administrators (AD 7) — Food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation)




The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 111 A of 18 April 2013.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case C-210/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2013 — Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: adjuvant, immunology, therapeutics, vaccine








C_2013189EN.01000801.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2013 — Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
(Case C-210/13)
2013/C 189/15
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Questions referred







1.


Is an adjuvant which has no therapeutic effect on its own, but which enhances the therapeutic effect of an antigen when combined with that antigen in a vaccine, an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1)?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is no, can the combination of such an adjuvant with an antigen nevertheless be regarded as a ‘combination of active ingredients’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
OJ L 152, p. 1
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013111EN.01000401.xml










18.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 April 2013
2013/C 111/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3129




JPY


Japanese yen


128,61




DKK


Danish krone


7,4562




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86130




SEK


Swedish krona


8,4727




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2149




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5550




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,854




HUF


Hungarian forint


294,54




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7005




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1145




RON


Romanian leu


4,3698




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3549




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2691




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3469




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1915




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5502




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6216




KRW


South Korean won


1 470,14




ZAR


South African rand


12,0304




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1041




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6130




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 750,79




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9848




PHP


Philippine peso


54,217




RUB


Russian rouble


41,3250




THB


Thai baht


37,890




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6094




MXN


Mexican peso


16,0174




INR


Indian rupee


71,1660






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-368/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Recovery of aid — Assessment of the validity of an EU act — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, aid to undertakings, common market, company in difficulties, interpretation of the law, reimbursement of aid








C_2013225EN.01004802.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/48





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
(Case C-368/12) (1)

(Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Recovery of aid - Assessment of the validity of an EU act - Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
2013/C 225/84
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Adiamix

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France), by decision of 26 July 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
Case C-12/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co. (Trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 15(1) — Definition of ‘genuine use’ — Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark)
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Germany, interpretation of the law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013164EN.01000602.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.
(Case C-12/12) (1)

(Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 15(1) - Definition of ‘genuine use’ - Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark)
2013/C 164/10
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Colloseum Holding AG

Respondent: Levi Strauss & Co.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Concept of ‘use of a trade mark’ — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark forming part of a composite mark where the composite mark is used — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark where it is used only together with another mark, the two marks being registered both individually and together as a composite mark

Operative part of the judgment

The condition of genuine use of a trade mark, within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, may be satisfied where a registered trade mark, which has become distinctive as a result of the use of another composite mark of which it constitutes one of the elements, is used only through that other composite mark, or where it is used only in conjunction with another mark, and the combination of those two marks is, furthermore, itself registered as a trade mark.


(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
Case F-36/13: Action brought on 18 April 2013 — ZZ v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, servant (EU), work contract








C_2013207EN.01005804.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/58





Action brought on 18 April 2013 — ZZ v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
(Case F-36/13)
2013/C 207/99
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment on the basis of Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS).

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 24 July 2012 of the Agency;










—


In consequence:






—


restore the applicant to his post with effect from 25 October 2012 and order the Agency to pay his remuneration with retroactive effect;










—


withdraw the contested decision from the applicant’s personnel file and all documents connected with the present proceedings;














—


Order the Agency to pay him the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered;










—


Order the Agency to pay the costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6778 — Advent International Corporation/Cytec's Resin Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, resin








C_2013111EN.01000201.xml










18.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6778 — Advent International Corporation/Cytec's Resin Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 111/03
On 6 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 32013M6778. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-413/11: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight — Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, separation of powers, transport regulations








C_2013225EN.01004101.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/41





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend
(Case C-413/11) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight - Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)
2013/C 225/69
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: Thomas Amend

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8(1)(a) and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Right to compensation in the event of delay — Limits of the jurisdiction of the Court — Scope of the interpretation given in the judgment of the Court of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others, extending, by analogy, the right to compensation to delay to a flight

Operative part of the order

The interpretation given by the Court to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to the effect that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time initially scheduled, even though, first, Article 6 of that regulation, relating to delay, provides only for the application of measures of assistance and of care and, secondly, reference is made to Article 7 of that regulation, relating to the right to compensation, only in situations of denied boarding and flight cancellation, has no bearing on the principle of the separation of powers in the European Union.


(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 9.
Case C-209/13: Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: enhanced cooperation, financial transaction, tax, tax harmonisation








C_2013171EN.01002202.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/22





Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
(Case C-209/13)
2013/C 171/44
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents, M. Hoskins QC, P. Baker QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


Annul Council Decision 2013/52/EU (1) authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax; and










—


Require the Council to pay the United Kingdom’s costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 327 TFEU because it authorizes the adoption of a financial transaction tax (‘FTT’) with extraterritorial effects which will fail to respect the competences, rights and obligations of the Non-Participating States.

Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is unlawful because it authorizes the adoption of an FTT with extraterritorial effects for which there is no justification in customary international law.

Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 332 TFEU because it authorizes enhanced cooperation for an FTT, the implementation of which will inevitably cause costs to be incurred by the Non-Participating States.


(1)  OJ L 22, p. 11