do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-115/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 25 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Availability of a parallel remedy — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, enforcement of ruling, indemnification








C_2013252EN.01005201.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/52





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 25 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case F-115/12) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Availability of a parallel remedy - Manifestly inadmissible)
2013/C 252/96
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the claim for compensation for the harm purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s sending a letter concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 4 875 relating to the costs which the General Court ordered the applicant to pay in Case T-241/03.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 71.
Case C-349/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, customs inspection, energy-generating product, excise duty, interpretation of the law, lubricants








C_2013274EN.01000401.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.
(Case C-349/13)
2013/C 274/07
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Should Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) and correspondingly the current Article 1(3), point (a) of the first subparagraph and the [second] subparagraph, of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (2) be interpreted as not precluding the imposition by a Member State of excise duty on lubricating oils falling within CN codes 2710 19 71 to 2710 19 99 used for purposes other than as motor fuels or heating fuels, in accordance with the rules relating to the harmonised excise duty imposed on the consumption of energy products?


(1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.
Case C-213/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, indemnification, interpretation of the law, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2013225EN.01005702.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/57





Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.
(Case C-213/12) (1)

2013/C 225/113
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
Case C-350/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp., and Others v Aivars Lembergs
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, conflict of jurisdiction, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, ownership








C_2013252EN.01002202.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp., and Others v Aivars Lembergs
(Case C-350/13)
2013/C 252/36
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp., Apollo Holdings Corp., Arctic Seal Shipping Co. Ltd, Atlantic Leader Shipping Co. Ltd, Cape Wind Trading Co. Ltd, Clipstone Navigation SA, Dawnlight Shipping Co. Ltd, Dzons Rids Shipping Corp., Faroship Navigation Co. Ltd, Gaida Shipping Corp., Gevostar Shipping Co. Ltd, Hose Marti Shipping Corp., Imanta Shipping Co. Ltd, Kemeri Navigation Corp., Klements Gotvalds Shipping Corp., Latgale Shipping Co. Ltd, Limetree Shipping Co. Ltd, Majori Shipping Co. Ltd, Noella Marītime Co. Ltd, Razna Shipping Corp., Sagewood Trading Inc., Samburga Shipping Co. Ltd, Saturn Trading Corp., Taganroga Shipping Corp., Talava Shipping Co. Ltd, Tangent Shipping Co. Ltd, Viktorio Shipping Corp., Wilcox Holding Ltd, Zemgale Shipping Co. Ltd, Zoja Shipping Co. Ltd

Respondent: Aivars Lembergs

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case C-308/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, administrative sanction, infringement of EU law, waste management








C_2013225EN.01005705.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/57





Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-308/12) (1)

2013/C 225/116
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
Case C-158/13: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Afghanistan, Netherlands, administrative formalities, family migration, infringement of EU law, right of asylum








C_2013225EN.01005906.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/59





Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-158/13) (1)

2013/C 225/132
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
Case C-347/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Erich Pickert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, transport regulations








C_2013274EN.01000302.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Erich Pickert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-347/13)
2013/C 274/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Erich Pickert

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?










2.


If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?










3.


If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-346/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Ville de Mons v KPN Group Belgium SA
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, interpretation of the law, regional and local authorities, regulation of telecommunications, tax system, telecommunications equipment, transmission network








C_2013252EN.01002201.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Ville de Mons v KPN Group Belgium SA
(Case C-346/13)
2013/C 252/35
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ville de Mons

Respondent: KPN Group Belgium SA

Question referred

Does Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services [(the ‘Authorisation Directive’)] (1) preclude local authorities from introducing a tax, for budgetary or other reasons, on the economic activity of telecommunications operators, in the form of the presence on their territory of GSM pylons, masts or antennas used for the purposes of that activity?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6945 — ABB/Power-One)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical industry, energy industry, merger control








C_2013179EN.01001801.xml










25.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6945 — ABB/Power-One)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 179/06






1.


On 17 June 2013 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the Swiss-based company ABB Ltd, the ultimate parent company of the ABB group, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Power-One Inc., by way of purchase of shares via Verdi Acquisition Corporation, an indirectly owned subsidiary of ABB Ltd.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ABB Ltd: the manufacturing and provision of power and automation technologies that enable utility and industry customers to improve performance while limiting environmental impact,










—


for Verdi Acquisition Corporation: a mere holding entity that will own all the shares in Power-One,










—


for Power-One Inc.: the manufacturing and provision of converters for renewable energy applications, power supply products and network power systems.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6945 — ABB/Power-One, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
Case C-351/13: Action brought on 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, infringement of EU law, intensive livestock farming, laying poultry, national implementing measure, protection of animals








C_2013260EN.01002701.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/27





Action brought on 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-351/13)
2013/C 260/48
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Markoulli and B. Schima)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to ensure that from 1 January 2012 laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC (1) of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC prohibits the rearing of laying hens in unenriched cage systems from 1 January 2012. In addition, Article 3 of Directive 1999/74/EC provides that the Member States are obliged to ensure that owners and holders apply in respect of laying hens only the rearing systems that are permitted by the directive.
The Commission directed the Member States’ attention to their obligations to comply with the abovementioned provisions of the directive from 2011. In accordance with the information which was supplied by the Hellenic Republic, it was clear that a significant number of owners and holders of establishments with laying hens would not be able to comply with the Hellenic Republic’s obligations under Directive 1999/74/EC by the date for compliance which is laid down by that directive.
It is apparent from the information which the Hellenic Republic has provided in the pre-litigation procedure and from more recent updates of that information that the Hellenic Republic has still not succeeded in complying with its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC.


(1)  OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.
Case C-241/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/41/EC — Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision — Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum)
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, supplementary pension








C_2013225EN.01000601.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/6





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-241/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/41/EC - Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision - Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period - Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Failure to comply with the judgment - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum)
2013/C 225/08
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, N. Yerrell and K.P. Wojcik, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10) — Imposition of a lump sum payment and a penalty payment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent to the Czech Republic by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










2.


Orders the Czech Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 250 000;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
Case C-348/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 June 2013 — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Internet site, copyright, information society, interpretation of the law








C_2013325EN.01000802.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 June 2013 — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch
(Case C-348/13)
2013/C 325/12
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BestWater International GmbH

Defendants: Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

Question referred

Does the embedding, within one’s own website, of another person’s work made available to the public on a third-party website, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, (1) even where that other person’s work is not thereby communicated to a new public and the communication of the work does not use a specific technical means which differs from that of the original communication?


(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013179EN.01001701.xml










25.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/17





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 June 2013
2013/C 179/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3086




JPY


Japanese yen


128,54




DKK


Danish krone


7,4590




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85115




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8884




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2241




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0400




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,865




HUF


Hungarian forint


299,97




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7016




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3500




RON


Romanian leu


4,5408




TRY


Turkish lira


2,5445




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4246




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3797




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1520




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6969




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6746




KRW


South Korean won


1 521,12




ZAR


South African rand


13,2811




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0415




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4775




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 997,20




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2112




PHP


Philippine peso


57,433




RUB


Russian rouble


43,0660




THB


Thai baht


40,724




BRL


Brazilian real


2,9575




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5222




INR


Indian rupee


78,1230






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-432/12 P: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01005805.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/58





Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH
(Case C-432/12 P) (1)

2013/C 225/123
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
Case C-496/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.
Date: 2013-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, consumer goods, defective product, marketing, measuring equipment, redemption








C_2013225EN.01005806.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/58





Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Spoločenstvo vlastníkov bytov MYJAVA v Podtatranská vodárenská prevádzková spoločnosť, a.s.
(Case C-496/12) (1)

2013/C 225/124
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.