do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-59/13: Action brought on 24 June 2013 — ZZ v EEAS
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: auxiliary worker, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2013233EN.01001401.xml










10.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/14





Action brought on 24 June 2013 — ZZ v EEAS
(Case F-59/13)
2013/C 233/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European External Action Service

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application to have his successive fixed-term employment contracts reclassified as a contract of indefinite duration and to have his period completed as an auxiliary member of the contract staff recognised as a period of service completed as a member of the contract staff.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s application;










—


Reclassify his contract of an auxiliary member of the contract staff as a contract of indefinite duration of a member of the contract staff under Article 3a of the CEOS;










—


Order the EEAS to pay the costs.
Case F-144/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2013 — Mateo Pérez v Commission (Civil Service — General competition — Application for annulment of a corrigendum to a notice of competition — Corrigendum not providing for conditions excluding the applicant — No act having adverse effects — Non-admission to selection tests — Admissibility — Time-limits for bringing actions — Lateness — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: admission to examinations, competition (EU), professional qualifications








C_2013252EN.01005003.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/50






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2013 — Mateo Pérez v Commission
(Case F-144/11) (1)

(Civil Service - General competition - Application for annulment of a corrigendum to a notice of competition - Corrigendum not providing for conditions excluding the applicant - No act having adverse effects - Non-admission to selection tests - Admissibility - Time-limits for bringing actions - Lateness - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2013/C 252/92)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Carlos Mateo Pérez (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: I. Ruiz García, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests following publication of a corrigendum to the notice of competition annulling the eliminatory mark for situational judgment test (d).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and the costs of Mr Mateo Pérez arising as from 14 March 2012, the date on which the defence was lodged.










3.


Mr Mateo Pérez shall bear his own costs arising before 14 March 2012.






(1)  
            OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 27.
Case C-342/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Katalin Sebestyén v Kővári Zsolt Csaba and Others
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arbitration, consumer information, financial institution, loan, unfair terms of contract








C_2013336EN.01000503.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Katalin Sebestyén v Kővári Zsolt Csaba and Others
(Case C-342/13)
2013/C 336/13
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Katalin Sebestyén

Defendants: Kővári Zsolt, Csaba OTP Bank, OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt., Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.

Questions referred







1.


On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes regarding a loan contract concluded by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Pénz- és Tőkepiaci Állandó Választottbíróság (Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market)?










2.


On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes concerning a loan contract entered into by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market, save in the exceptional cases provided for in the contract, regardless of the fact that the contract contains general information concerning differences between the procedure governed by Law LXXI of 1994 on Arbitration and ordinary legal proceedings?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 600/2013 of 24 June 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 as regards the carrying out of isotopic analyses of wine products in Croatia during a transitional period
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, Joint Research Centre, accession to the European Union, qualitative analysis, transitional period (EU), wine




L_2013172EN.01001301.xml










25.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 172/13








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 600/2013
of 24 June 2013
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 as regards the carrying out of isotopic analyses of wine products in Croatia during a transitional period


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of Croatia, and in particular Article 3(4) thereof (1),


Having regard to the Act of Accession of Croatia, and in particular Article 41(1) thereof (2),

Whereas:







(1)


In view of the accession of Croatia to the European Union, specific rules should be laid down as regards the isotopic analysis of wine products to be carried out as referred to in Article 87 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 (3). Such isotopic analysis is an analytical method used for the control and for combating fraud in the wine sector requiring highly special scientific knowledge and technical equipment. Croatia is not equipped to carry out this method. In order to ensure a uniform application of control procedures, the Joint Research Centre should carry out the analysis on Croatia’s behalf for a period that will allow it to acquire the necessary knowledge and equipment to execute this task.












(2)


Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Article 89 of Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 89
For a period ending on 30 June 2015, pending the setting up of the adequate analytical equipment, Croatia shall send its wine samples to the JRC for analysis.
Croatia may designate a competent body authorised to have access to the information on samples on its territory.’



Article 2

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Croatia.
It shall expire on 30 June 2015.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 June 2013.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 112, 24.4.2012, p. 10.

(2)  
            OJ L 112, 24.4.2012, p. 21.

(3)  
            OJ L 170, 30.6.2008, p. 1.
Case C-344/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italia) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cristiano Blanco v Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, gaming establishment, interpretation of the law, public health, public safety, tax return








C_2013260EN.01002602.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italia) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cristiano Blanco v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-344/13)
2013/C 260/46
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cristiano Blanco

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

Question referred

Is it incompatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty for persons resident in Italy to be required to declare for tax purposes, and be liable for tax on, winnings obtained from casinos in Member States of the European Union, as provided for by Article 67(1)(d) of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22.12.1986 (‘the TUIR’), or must this be regarded as justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, pursuant to Article 46 of the EC Treaty?
Case F-150/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2013 — Weissenfels v Parliament
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, indemnification








C_2013252EN.01005202.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/52





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2013 — Weissenfels v Parliament
(Case F-150/12) (1)

2013/C 252/97
Language of the case: German
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013, p. 36.
Case C-341/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, Portugal, administrative sanction, interpretation of the law, reimbursement of aid








C_2013260EN.01002502.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)
(Case C-341/13)
2013/C 260/44
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cruz & Companhia, Lda.

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests apply only to relations between the European Community and the defendant in its capacity as a paying agency of Community aid, or does it also apply to relations between the defendant in its capacity as a paying agency of Community aid and the applicant in its capacity as a beneficiary of aid which is deemed to have been wrongly granted?










2.


If the limitation period laid down in Article 3(1) of that regulation is applicable also to relations between the paying agency of the aid and the beneficiary of the aid deemed to have been granted unduly, should that limitation period be understood as being applicable only where administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 are at issue, or also where ‘administrative measures’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that regulation are at issue — in this instance, repayment of sums wrongly received?






(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.
Action brought on 24 June 2013 by Abelia against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-8/13)
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, State aid, VAT, control of State aid, education, information technology industry, inter-company cooperation, research and development, telecommunications industry








C_2013287EN.01001201.xml










3.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/12





Action brought on 24 June 2013 by Abelia against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-8/13)
2013/C 287/08
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 24 June 2013 by Abelia, represented by attorney-at-law Ingebjørg Harto and attorney-at-law Nina Lea Gjerde, Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), PO Box 5250 Majorstuen, 0303 Oslo, Norway.
The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


declare void Article 1 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013;










2.


order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The applicant is a trade and employers association within the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hoved-organisasjon) representing 1 250 member companies within IT, telecommunications, research and development, consultancy and education services.










—


The basis for the application is the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013 to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the Norwegian provisions on VAT and VAT compensation are to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.










—


The applicant claims, inter alia, that:






—


the EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA), c.f. Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 SCA,










—


the EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to provide reasons as required by Article 16 SCA.
Case C-345/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 24 June 2013 — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, intellectual property, interpretation of the law








C_2013260EN.01002603.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 24 June 2013 — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd
(Case C-345/13)
2013/C 260/47
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Karen Millen Fashions Ltd

Defendant: Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

Questions referred







1.


In consideration of the individual character of a design which is claimed to be entitled to be protected as an unregistered Community design for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs (1), is the overall impression it produces on the informed user, within the meaning of Article 6 of that Regulation, to be considered by reference to whether it differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by






(a)


any individual design which has previously been made available to the public, or










(b)


any combination of known design features from more than one such earlier design?














2.


Is a Community design court obliged to treat an unregistered Community design as valid for the purposes of Article 85(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs where the right holder merely indicates what constitutes the individual character of the design or is the right holder obliged to prove that the design has individual character in accordance with Article 6 of that Regulation?






(1)  OJ L 3, p. 1
Case T-336/13: Action brought on 24 June 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: political group, political group (EP), political rights, rights of the defence








C_2013252EN.01003602.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/36





Action brought on 24 June 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament
(Case T-336/13)
2013/C 252/61
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mario Borghezio (Turin, Italy) (represented by: H. Laquay, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and founded and, consequently, annul the decision of the European Parliament taken in the form of a declaration of its President at the plenary session of 10 June 2013, according to which, as from 3 June 2013, the applicant is to be regarded as as a ‘non-attached’ member and is thus excluded from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ as from that date;










—


determine the costs in accordance with the law.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies — in addition to the fact that the decision declaring him to be a non-attached member produces legal effects since it prevents him from carry out his parliamentary mandate in the same conditions as the members of Parliament who are affiliated to a political group — on two pleas in law relating to the substance of the case. The applicant submits that the Parliament is required to assess whether there has been a serious and manifest infringement of the statutes of the political group or of a general principle of law.






1.


By his first ground of appeal, the applicant submits that there has been a serious and manifest infringement of the statutes of the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’, since the decision to exclude the applicant from the group was taken prior to the group’s next meeting, contrary to what is stated in its statutes.










2.


By his second plea in law, he alleges an infringement of his rights of defence, since he was not able to put forward his pleas in his defence at a meeting of the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’.
Case C-343/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)
Date: 2013-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, corporate social responsibility, fine, interpretation of the law, merger, occupational safety








C_2013260EN.01002601.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)
(Case C-343/13)
2013/C 260/45
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA

Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

Questions referred







1.


In the light of Community law and, in particular, Directive 2011/35/EU (1) and Article 19 thereof, does the merger of companies entail a system of transfer of liability for administrative offences to the acquiring company for acts committed by the company being acquired before registration of the merger?










2.


Can a penalty for administrative offences be considered a debt owed to third parties (in the present case the State, for infringement of rules concerning administrative offences) for the purposes of the application of the Directive, with the consequence that the corresponding debt (fine) for an administrative offence, in respect of which the State is the creditor, is transferred to the acquiring company?










3.


Does an interpretation of Article 112 of the Commercial Companies Code according to which it does not imply termination of proceedings for an administrative offence committed before the merger, or of the corresponding fine to be imposed, conflict with the abovementioned Community Directive, which sets out the consequences of a company merger, thereby constituting a broad interpretation of the provision contrary to the principles of Community law and, in particular, Article 19 of the Directive?










4.


Does that interpretation constitute a breach of the principle that there can be no administrative offence without strict (mitigated) liability or liability for fault on the part of the acquiring entity?






(1)  Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ L 110, 29.4.2011, p. 1)