do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-39/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2013207EN.01006001.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/60





Action brought on 29 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-39/13)
2013/C 207/102
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service at the Commission on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 (‘the GIP’) and the decision rejecting the complaint.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision rejections her complaint of 24 January 2013 relating to the application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force at the time of her application for transfer of her pension rights;










—


annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Settlement of Individual Entitlements of 11 July 2012, applying the actuarial values resulting from the new GIP;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-242/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL)
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013207EN.01003802.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/38





Action brought on 29 April 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL)
(Case T-242/13)
2013/C 207/64
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: José Castell Macía (Elche, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda, H. Mosback and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) (Budapest, Hungary)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 February 2013 in Case R 1401/2012-1 so as to dismiss the opposition filed and grant the Community trade mark application No 6 798 862‘PEPE CASTELL’, and order the opponent to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings;










—


order OHIM, as defendant, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in the present action;










—


if necessary, order the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: José Castell Macía

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PEPE CASTELL’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 6 798 862

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word elements ‘Pepe Jeans FOOTWEAR’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-241/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: gas supply, natural gas, single market








C_2013189EN.01001102.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/11





Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-241/13)
2013/C 189/22
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Heller and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations to transpose Article 2(10), (20) and (22), Article 3(3) and (4), Article 7(3), Article 9(5), (7) and (12), Article 10(5), Article 11(5)(a) and (b), Articles 12, 13, 15 and 16, Article 26(2)(b), the second, fourth and fifth sentences of Article 26(2)(c), the third and fourth sentences of Article 26(2)(d), Article 26(3), Article 27(2), Article 33, the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 36(4), Article 36(6) and (8), the third subparagraph of Article 36(9), Article 41(1)(d), (e), (i), (k), (n), (p), (q) and (s), Article 41(6)(c), the second and third sentences of Article 41(9), Article 41(10), Article 44(3), the second, third, fifth and seventh indents of the first subparagraph of point 1(a) of Annex I, the second subparagraph of point 1(a) of Annex I, point 1(b), (d), (f). (h), (i) and (j) of Annex I and point 2 of Annex I of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for transposition of the directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive;










—


impose on the Republic of Estonia, for breaching the obligation to notify the measures transposing the directive, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 4224 a day from the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice;










—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 March 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.
Case C-240/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electricity supply, exchange of information, single market








C_2013189EN.01001101.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/11





Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
(Case C-240/13)
2013/C 189/21
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Heller and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations to transpose Article 2(21), Article 9(5), (7) and (12), Article 10(5),the first sentence of Article 11(1), Article 11(5)(a) and (b), Article 16(2) and (3), the second, fourth and fifth sentences of Article 26(2)(c), Article 36, Article 37(1)(e), (f), (i), (k) and (p), Article 37(8), the second sentence of Article 37(10), Article 38(3), Article 40(3), and the fifth indent of point 1(a) and point 1(d), (f), (i) and (j) of Annex I of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for transposition of the directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of the directive;










—


impose on the Republic of Estonia, for breaching the obligation to notify the measures transposing the directive, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 5 068,8 a day from the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice;










—


order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 March 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.
Case C-225/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Ville d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Michel Tillieut, Willy Gregoire, Marc Lacroix v Région wallonne
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, waste disposal








C_2013207EN.01001302.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Ville d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Michel Tillieut, Willy Gregoire, Marc Lacroix v Région wallonne
(Case C-225/13)
2013/C 207/24
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ville d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Michel Tillieut, Willy Gregoire, Marc Lacroix

Defendant: Région wallonne

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste to be interpreted as permitting the classification as a waste management plan of a legislative provision that states that, in derogation from the rule that no landfills may be authorised except on the sites provided for in the waste management plan, landfills authorised before that waste management plan entered into force may, after such entry into force, be the subject-matter of new authorisations in respect of the plots covered by the authorisation pre-dating the entry into force of the waste management plan?










2.


Is Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (2) to be interpreted as including within the meaning of plan and programme a legislative provision which states that, in derogation from the rule that no landfills may be authorised except on the sites provided for in the waste management plan required by Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, landfills authorised before that waste management plan entered into force may, after such entry into force, be the subject-matter of new authorisations in respect of the plots covered by the authorisation pre-dating the entry into force of the waste management plan?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does the second paragraph of Article 70 of the Decree of 27 June 1996 on waste, as amended by the Decree of 16 October 2003, satisfy the requirements for the assessment of effects laid down in Directive 2001/42/EC?






(1)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39).

(2)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).
Case C-242/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Commerz Nederland NV; other party: Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, board of directors, guarantee, interpretation of the law, liability, organisation, public authorities, public sector








C_2013207EN.01002402.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Commerz Nederland NV; other party: Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV
(Case C-242/13)
2013/C 207/38
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Commerz Nederland NV

Other party: Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV

Questions referred







1.


Is the imputability — required for purposes of classification as State aid within the meaning of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — to the public authorities of a guarantee provided by a public undertaking necessarily precluded by the fact that that guarantee, as in the present case, was provided by the (sole) director of the public undertaking who, while he had the power to do so under civil law, acted on his own authority, deliberately kept the provision of the guarantee secret and ignored the requirements under the articles of association of the public undertaking by failing to seek the approval of the Raad van Commissarissen (Council of Commissioners), and where, furthermore, it must be assumed that the public body concerned (in this case, the Gemeente (Municipality)) did not want the guarantee to be provided?










2.


If the circumstances described do not necessarily preclude imputability to the public authorities, are those circumstances then irrelevant for the purpose of answering the question as to whether the provision of the guarantee may be imputed to the public authorities, or should the court consider the matter in the light of the other indicators which argue for or against imputability to the public authorities?
Case C-226/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2013-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, damages, indemnification, interpretation of the law, official document, provision of documents, public debt








C_2013215EN.01000601.xml










27.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-226/13)
2013/C 215/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stefan Fahnenbrock

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG & Co. KG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?


(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.