do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-668/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Community procurement procedure — Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision — Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid — Action for damages)
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, carriage of passengers, indemnification, invitation to tender, services contract, transport company








C_2013225EN.01007501.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/75





Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
(Case T-668/11) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Community procurement procedure - Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg - Rejection of the bid of a tenderer - Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision - Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid - Action for damages)
2013/C 225/166
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: G. Hellinckx and M. Mraz and subsequently by: L. Darie and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 rejecting its tender submitted in the context of the tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1), subsequently annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament [2009] ECR II-1403.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders VIP Car Solutions SARL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case C-535/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2013225EN.01005601.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/56





Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman
(Case C-535/12 P)
2013/C 225/105
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Rafael Faet Oltra (represented by: R. Faet Oltra, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman
By order of 6 June 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
2013/273/EU: Council Decision of 6 June 2013 appointing three Maltese members and three Maltese alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Malta, appointment of members








L_2013159EN.01001301.xml










11.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 159/13








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 6 June 2013
         
appointing three Maltese members and three Maltese alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
(2013/273/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Maltese Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.












(2)


Three members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Claudette ABELA BALDACCHINO, Mr Michael COHEN and Mr Malcolm MIFSUD. Two alternate members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Doris BORG and Mr Ian BORG. An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Paul FARRUGIA as member of the Committee of the Regions,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:






(a)


as members:






—


Mr Peter BONELLO, Mayor of San Ġiljan,










—


Mr Paul FARRUGIA, Mayor of Ħal Tarxien,










—


Dr Marc SANT, Councillor, Ħal Lija Local Council;




and










(b)


as alternate members:






—


Mr Jesmond AQUILINA, Deputy Mayor of Ħal Qormi,










—


Mr Anthony MIFSUD, Councillor, Imtarfa Local Council,










—


Mr Raymond TABONE, Councillor, San Pawl il-Baħar Local Council.










Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 6 June 2013.


For the Council


The President

A. SHATTER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

(2)  
            OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
Case T-68/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing watch dials — Earlier unregistered designs — Ground for invalidity — Novelty — Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Individual character — Different overall impression — Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Earlier copyright — Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002)
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01006602.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/66





Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials)
(Case T-68/11) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing watch dials - Earlier unregistered designs - Ground for invalidity - Novelty - Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Earlier copyright - Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002)
2013/C 225/146
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Erich Kastenholz (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Hanne, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Qwatchme A/S (Løsning, Denmark) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 (Case R 1086/2009-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Erich Kastenholz and Qwatchme A/S.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Mr Erich Kastenholz to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013160EN.01000201.xml










6.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 June 2013
2013/C 160/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3067




JPY


Japanese yen


130,13




DKK


Danish krone


7,4545




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85105




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6255




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2371




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6050




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,846




HUF


Hungarian forint


294,67




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7024




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2452




RON


Romanian leu


4,4258




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4592




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3647




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3509




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1414




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6331




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6313




KRW


South Korean won


1 463,45




ZAR


South African rand


12,9501




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0071




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5195




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 813,67




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0236




PHP


Philippine peso


54,872




RUB


Russian rouble


41,9595




THB


Thai baht


39,880




BRL


Brazilian real


2,7483




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6510




INR


Indian rupee


74,2010






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-383/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax legislation — Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, bank, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, infringement of EU law, interest, tax exemption








C_2013225EN.01000201.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-383/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Tax legislation - Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)
2013/C 225/02
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Breach of Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Restriction on freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — National provisions establishing a tax exemption applicable only to interest paid by Belgian banks, excluding that paid by non–resident banks — Discriminatory taxation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court declares that:






1.


By introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, resulting from the application of a tax exemption reserved only to interest payments by resident banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;










2.


The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6896 — Spar/Allianz/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, Italy, economic concentration, financial services, foodstuff, insurance, merger control, retail selling, shopping centre, sports equipment








C_2013160EN.01000101.xml










6.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 160/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6896 — Spar/Allianz/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 160/01
On 28 May 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 German 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 32013M6896. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-183/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings)
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, religious fundamentalism, terrorism








C_2013225EN.01003102.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/31





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union
(Case C-183/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)
2013/C 225/52
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents)

Intervener in support of the Commission: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent, E. Regan SC and N. Travers BL)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on an action seeking the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Ayadi v Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Chafiq Ayadi;










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Chafiq Ayadi’s action for annulment;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
Case C-397/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible — No failure to state reasons — Imprecise ground of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking reconsideration of the application at first instance)
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bus, carriage of passengers, indemnification, international road transport








C_2013225EN.01005001.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/50





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-397/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible - No failure to state reasons - Imprecise ground of appeal - Ground of appeal seeking reconsideration of the application at first instance)
2013/C 225/88
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: E Deshoulières, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission, by which the General Court rejected as manifestly unfounded in law an application for compensation of a loss allegedly suffered due to the application of the system laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1) — Conditions on which an action for compensation may be brought — Wrongful act of an institution

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
Case T-411/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET — Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, pharmacy, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01007801.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/78





Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)
(Case T-411/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET - Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 225/173
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Celtipharm and Alliance Healthcare France SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2);










2.


Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.
Case F-56/13: Action brought on 6 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: transfer of pension rights








C_2013274EN.01002901.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/29





Action brought on 6 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-56/13)
2013/C 274/45
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 27 February 2013 rejecting the complaints made by the applicant on 7 January 2013 against the decisions of the PMO.4 of 10 October 2012;










—


annul in addition those decisions of 10 October 2012 adopted by the PMO.4 against which the applicant’s complaints were made;










—


declare unlawful the general implementing provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as adopted on 3 March 2011, particularly Article 9 thereof, and declare them inapplicable to the present case;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-310/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2013 — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v Corinna Silber
Date: 2013-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, pharmaceutical product, producer's liability








C_2013260EN.01002103.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2013 — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v Corinna Silber
(Case C-310/13)
2013/C 260/37
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH

Claimant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Corinna Silber

Question referred

Must Article 13 of Directive 85/374/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, as a ‘special liability system’, the German system of liability for pharmaceutical products is in general not affected by that directive, with the result that the national system of liability for pharmaceutical products may be further developed, or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that no extension is permitted to the situations covered by the liability system for pharmaceutical products existing at the point in time at which the directive was notified (30 July 1985)?


(1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).