do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-261/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2013 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-186/11 Peter Schönberger v European Parliament
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial proceedings, petition, powers of the institutions (EU), transparency in decision-making








C_2013207EN.01002702.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/27





Appeal brought on 8 May 2013 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-186/11 Peter Schönberger v European Parliament
(Case C-261/13 P)
2013/C 207/44
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peter Schönberger (represented by: O. Mader, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 in Case T-186/11;










—


Uphold the application made by the appellant at first instance. Annul the respondent’s decision, communicated to the appellant by letter of 25 January 2011, by which the examination of his petition No 1188/2010 was terminated, without the Committee on Petitions examining the substance of the petition;










—


Order the respondent to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its presentation of the facts, the General Court suppressed the fact that the chairperson of the Committee on Petitions informed the appellant without giving further reasons that, although his petition was admissible, the Committee on Petitions could not examine its substance. Subsequently the General Court assumed — thereby distorting the facts — that the petition had been examined.
The General Court misrepresented the scope of protection of the fundamental right of petition by unlawfully presuming that it was limited to the examination of the admissibility of a petition. The scope of protection also however encompasses the right to a substantive examination of the petition and to a decision on the substance, if the petition is admissible (right to have case examined).
The General Court contradicted itself by holding that the Parliament’s failure to examine an admissible petition, unlike the failure to examine an inadmissible petition, does not produce any legal effects.
The General Court ruled in a manner contrary to its own case-law in Case T-308/07 Tegebauer. (1) It held in that case that the effectiveness of the right of petition can be impaired where the substance of a petition has not been examined.
The General Court overlooked the legal infringement constituted by the deficient reasoning of the European Parliament’s decision. It instead substituted its own reasoning for the deficient reasons given for the failure to deal with the petition.
The General Court failed to take due account of the fact that the appellant was denied the possibility of presenting his case to the Committee on Petitions in an undistorted way.


(1)  Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 (not yet published in the ECR).
Case F-43/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, wage determination








C_2013207EN.01006102.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/61





Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB
(Case F-43/13)
2013/C 207/106
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions contained in the pay slips for the month of February 2013, limiting the annual salary adjustment to 1.8 % for 2013 and the annulment of later salary slips. Secondly, application for an order that the institution pay compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision contained in the applicants’ pay slips for the month of February 2013, limiting the annual salary adjustment to 1.8 % for 2013 and, therefore, annul the similar decisions contained in later pay slips and, where necessary, annul two information memos that the defendant sent to the applicants on 5 February 2013 and 15 February 2013;










—


Order the European Investment Bank (‘the EIB’) to pay to each applicant, in compensation for the material damage (i) the balance of salary corresponding to the 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 consequences of the application of the annual adjustment of 1.8 % for 2013 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2014; (iii) default interest on the balances of salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, with the default interest rate to be applied calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable for the relevant period, increased by three points and (iv) damages on account of the loss of purchasing power; the overall material damage being assessed, provisionally, for each applicant at EUR 30 000;










—


Order the EIB to pay to each applicant EUR 1 000 in compensation for non-material damage;










—


Order the EIB to pay the costs.
Case T-260/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Ryanair Holdings v Commission
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: free competition, low cost airline, merger control, single market








C_2013189EN.01002801.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/28





Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Ryanair Holdings v Commission
(Case T-260/13)
2013/C 189/58
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair Holdings plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and D. Hull, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2013) 1106 final of 27 February 2013 declaring a merger to be incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.6663 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus III);










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding, and failed to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard, that the merger, as modified by the commitments offered by the applicant, would significantly impede effective competition in the common market. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the principle of proportionality, the principle of sound administration, and the obligation to state reasons.
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment and violated the above-mentioned principles with regard to (a) the commitments relating to the divestiture of Aer Lingus’s operations on 43 overlap routes to Flybe Group plc; (b) the commitments relating to the Dublin-London, Cork-London, and Shannon-London routes; (c) the commitments relating Aer Arann’s operation on the 43 overlap routes on which Flybe would operate, and (d) the commitments relating to the routes on which the Commission identified potential competition concerns.
Case F-71/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Z v Court of Justice (Civil Service — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, staff assessment








C_2013252EN.01004801.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/48





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Z v Court of Justice
(Case F-71/11) (1)

(Civil Service - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 252/84
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-M. Bauler, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A.V. Placco, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the staff report for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007 and an order that the defendant pay compensation for non-material damage.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-71/11 Z v Court of Justice.










2.


The applicant shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 30.
Case C-73/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy)) — T (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, income in addition to normal pay, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, legal aid








C_2013225EN.01005402.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/54





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy)) — T
(Case C-73/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
2013/C 225/100
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that counsel’s fees may not exceed the average amounts applied in accordance with the professional rates in force where the client has been granted legal aid

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case F-44/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, living conditions








C_2013207EN.01006103.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/61





Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-44/13)
2013/C 207/107
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decisions concerning the grant of compensation for material damage suffered by the applicant because of the incorrect calculation of the allowance for living conditions.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission decision of 25 January 2013 received by the applicant on 28 January 2013 on the partial annulment of the PMO.1 decision of 30 March 2012 in so far as it limits to 1 March 2007 the applicant’s claim to be granted compensation for the material damage suffered because of the incorrect calculation of the allowance for living conditions to which the applicant has been entitled since 22 September 2002 and in so far as it takes account of the orphan’s pension of the applicant’s daughter between 1 March 2007 and 31 August 2008 for the purposes of calculating that compensation;










—


annul the Commission decision of 4 February 2013 received by the applicant on 5 February 2013 and her wage statement for February 2013 as regards the RRV correction code relating to compensation for the abovementioned damage imposed on 1 March 2007, while maintaining the effects of that statement until the adoption of a new bulletin correctly applying Article 10 of Annex 10 to the Staff Regulations from 31 December 2011 until 22 September 2002;










—


order the Commission to pay a provisional additional sum of EUR 11 000,00, for the loss in respect of the allowance for living conditions suffered by the applicant between 22 September 2002 and 31 August 2008 and to pay interest calculated on the full damage suffered in that connection between 22 September 2002 and 31 December 2011, payable as from the dates when such payments are respectively due until the actual day of payment and calculated on the basis of the rates applied by the ECB to its principal refinancing operations over the period concerned, plus two points;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case F-87/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — FK (*) v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Renewal of contract — Annulment in part — Review)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), work contract




C_2013252EN.01005102.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/51






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — FK (*1) v Commission
(Case F-87/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Temporary staff - Renewal of contract - Annulment in part - Review)
(2013/C 252/94)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FK (*1) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, A. Coolen and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit the extension period of the applicant’s contract.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


FK (*1) shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  
            OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 19.
Case T-263/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)
Date: 2013-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013207EN.01004302.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/43





Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)
(Case T-263/13)
2013/C 207/73
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH (Sohland, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2013 in Case R 1968/2011-1;










—


vary the contested decision in such a way as to reject the opponent’s opposition;










—


order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure, or order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘holzmichel’ for goods and services in Classes 21, 24, 32, 33 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 8 904 278

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rivella International AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration of figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Michel’ and ‘Michel POWER’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 32 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and registration refused

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009