do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-254/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 8 May 2013 — Orgacom BVBA v Vlaamse Landmaatschappij
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Flanders (Belgium), consumer protection, customs duties, equal treatment, fertiliser, import tax, interpretation of the law, production surplus, soil pollution








C_2013207EN.01002601.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 8 May 2013 — Orgacom BVBA v Vlaamse Landmaatschappij
(Case C-254/13)
2013/C 207/41
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Orgacom BVBA

Respondent: Vlaamse Landmaatschappij

Questions referred







1.


Is the import levy described in Article 21(5) of the Decree [of the Flanders Region] of 23 January 1991 on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution, which is imposed only on the importation from the other Member States of surpluses of manure derived both from livestock manure and from other manure, irrespective of whether these are further processed or marketed within the territory, and whereby the levy on those imported surpluses of manure is imposed on the importer, whereas in the case of surpluses of manure produced domestically the levy is imposed on the producer, to be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, within the terms of Article 30 TFEU, even though the Member State from which the surpluses of manure are exported itself provides for a reduction of the levy on the exportation of those surpluses of manure to other Member States?










2.


In so far as the import levy described in Article 21(5) of the Decree [of the Flanders Region] of 23 January 1991 on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution, which is imposed only on the importation from the other Member States into the Flanders Region of surpluses of manure derived both from livestock manure and from other manure, cannot be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, is that import levy to be regarded as constituting discriminatory taxation of the products of other Member States, within the terms of Article 110 TFEU, since livestock manure produced domestically is subject to a basic levy provided for by national legislation, the rate of which differs according to the production process, whereas in the case of imported surpluses of manure, irrespective of the production process (inter alia, the animal origin or the P2O5N content), an import levy is imposed at a uniform rate which is higher than the lowest rate of the basic levy for livestock manure produced in the Flanders Region (EUR 0.00), even though the Member State from which the surpluses of manure are exported itself provides for a reduction of the levy on the exportation of those surpluses of manure to other Member States?
Case C-591/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2014  — Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Panrico SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier Spanish word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative grounds for refusal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Independent distinctive role of one element of a composite word mark)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consumer protection, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014202EN.01000501.xml










30.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Panrico SA
(Case C-591/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier Spanish word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative grounds for refusal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Independent distinctive role of one element of a composite word mark))
2014/C 202/06
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bimbo SA (represented by: C. Prat, abogado, and R. Ciullo, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents), Panrico SA (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, abogado)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T-569/10 Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘BIMBO DOUGHNUTS’ for goods in Class 30 against the decision R 838/2009-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 October 2010 dismissing the action against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international and national word marks ‘DONUT’, ‘DOGHNUTS’ and ‘DONUTS’ and the international and national figurative marks containing the word ‘donuts’ for goods in Class 30 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Bimbo SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.
Case C-268/12 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ZYDUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ZIMBUS — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01004402.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/44





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG
(Case C-268/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ZYDUS - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ZIMBUS - Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)
2013/C 225/76
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Novartis AG (represented by: N. Hebeis, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-288/08 Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS), by which that court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the word mark ‘ZYDUS’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 for annulment of Decision R 1092/2007-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 May 2008 rejecting in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing in part registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ‘ZIMBUS’ for goods in Class 5 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Cadila Healthcare Ltd shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
Case C-508/11 P P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Gravity of the infringement — Multiplier for deterrence — Actual impact on the market — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringements)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: restriction on competition, rubber industry, subsidiary








C_2013225EN.01001102.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission
(Case C-508/11 P P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Gravity of the infringement - Multiplier for deterrence - Actual impact on the market - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringements)
2013/C 225/17
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Eni SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and M.L. Malferrari, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 — Case T-39/07 Eni v Commission by which the General Court dismissed in part the action seeking the annulment, as regards Eni SpA, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber), or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Eni — Evidence of infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;










2.


Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013131EN.01000101.xml










8.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 May 2013
2013/C 131/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3107




JPY


Japanese yen


129,98




DKK


Danish krone


7,4526




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84420




SEK


Swedish krona


8,5287




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2333




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6395




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,747




HUF


Hungarian forint


296,25




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7002




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1520




RON


Romanian leu


4,3160




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3594




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2908




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3175




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1734




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5524




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6157




KRW


South Korean won


1 430,16




ZAR


South African rand


11,8722




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0658




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5707




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 761,02




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9070




PHP


Philippine peso


53,587




RUB


Russian rouble


40,6500




THB


Thai baht


38,718




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6374




MXN


Mexican peso


15,8943




INR


Indian rupee


70,8930






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-87/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg)) — Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement — Fundamental rights)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, Luxembourg, family migration, foreign national, free movement of persons, fundamental rights, interpretation of the law, residence permit








C_2013225EN.01002702.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/27





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg)) — Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
(Case C-87/12) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement - Fundamental rights)
2013/C 225/44
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Citizenship of the Union — Right to family reunification for a citizen of the European Union for the benefit of family members who are third-country nationals, where that person has not actually exercised the right of freedom of movement and does not have a right to reside in a Member State other than that of which he holds the nationality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to allow a third-country national to reside in its territory, where that third-country national wishes to reside with a family member who is a European Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he holds the nationality and has never exercised his right of freedom of movement as a Union citizen, provided such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen.


(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, Greece, Portugal, competition (EU), translation








C_2013131EN.01009901.xml










8.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/99





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
2013/C 131/03
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following two open competitions:






—


EPSO/AST/127/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Greek as their main language (EL)










—


EPSO/AST/128/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Portuguese as their main language (PT)




The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 131 A of 8 May 2013.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-165/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission (Interim relief — Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Repayment of sums paid — Application for stay of execution — No urgency)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, contract terms, reimbursement of aid








C_2013225EN.01008201.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/82





Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission
(Case T-165/13 R)
(Interim relief - Arbitration clause - Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Repayment of sums paid - Application for stay of execution - No urgency)
2013/C 225/182
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etairia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketigk kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Talanton SA Business Consulting and Marketing Services) (Athens, Greece) (represented by M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Cordewener and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of a number of acts concerning the repayment of sums paid to the applicant under contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case F-41/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, pay, wage determination








C_2013207EN.01006003.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/60





Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB
(Case F-41/13)
2013/C 207/104
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, claim for annulment of the decisions in the wage slips of February 2013, determining the annual adjustment of salaries for 2013 to be limited to 1.8 %, of the defendant’s information notes sent to the applicants on 5 February 2013 and 15 February 2013 and annulment of subsequent wage slips. Secondly, claim that the institution be ordered to pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision contained in the applicants’ wage slips for February 2013, a decision determining the annual adjustment of salaries for 2013 to be limited to 1.8 % and, consequently, annul the similar decisions contained in the subsequent wage slips and, so far as necessary, annul two information notes sent to the applicants on 5 February 2013 and 15 February 2013;










—


order the defendant to pay to each applicant, as compensation for material harm (i) the balance of salary corresponding to application of the annual adjustment for 2013, that is an increase of 1.8 %, for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013; (ii) the balance of salary corresponding to the results of application of the annual adjustment of 1.8 % for 2013 on the amount of salaries to be paid from January 2014; (iii) default interest on the balance of salaries payable until full payment of the sums payable, the applicable default interest rates to be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable over the period concerned, increased by three points and (iv) damages due to the loss of purchasing power, that entire material harm being estimated, provisionally, in respect of each applicant, at EUR 30 000;










—


order the defendant to pay to each applicant the sum of EUR 1 000 as compensation for non-material harm;










—


order the EIB to pay the costs.
Case F-42/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ v EESC
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, work contract








C_2013207EN.01006101.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/61





Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ v EESC
(Case F-42/13)
2013/C 207/105
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment contract and the application to compensate her for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 16 October 2012 adopted by the Secretary-General of the EESC, as the Authority empowered to conclude contracts, to terminate the applicant’s contract;










—


if necessary, annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of 31 January 2013 confirming the termination of the applicant’s contract and the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of 24 April 2013 specifically rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


pay compensation in respect of the material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


grant the applicant the sum fixed on equitable grounds and provisionally at EUR 150 000 for non-material damage suffered;










—


order the EESC to pay the costs.