do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-407/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 July 2013 — Rotondo and Others v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, temporary employment








C_2013313EN.01000701.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 July 2013 — Rotondo and Others v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana
(Case C-407/13)
2013/C 313/12
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Francesco Rotondo and Others

Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Questions referred







1.


Are the clauses of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70 (1) applicable to maritime labour and, in particular, does clause 2(1) thereof also cover workers engaged for a fixed term on ferries making daily crossings?










2.


Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Article 332 of the Italian Navigation Code) that provides that the ‘duration’ of the contract, rather than its ‘term’, is to be indicated, and is it compatible with that directive to provide for the duration of the contract by indicating a terminating point that is definite as regards the question whether it exists (‘a maximum of 78 days’) but indefinite as regards the question of when it occurs?










3.


Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Articles 325, 326 and 332 of the Italian Navigation Code) in which the objective reasons for a fixed-term contract are expressed simply in terms of the voyage or voyages to be made, in essence equating the purpose of the contract (the service provided) with its cause (the reasons for fixing a term)?










4.


Does the framework agreement implemented by the directive preclude national legislation (in the present case the rules of the Italian Navigation Code) that, in the event of the use of successive contracts (in such a way as to be considered abusive for the purposes of clause 5) excludes the transformation of those contracts into contracts of indefinite duration (as provided by Article 326 of the Italian Navigation Code only in situations in which the seaman works continuously for more than a year and in situations in which the period between the ending of one contract and the drawing-up of the following contract is no more than 60 days)?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Case C-405/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, domestic market, electrical energy, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure








C_2013260EN.01003801.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/38





Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania
(Case C-405/13)
2013/C 260/68
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch. O. Beynet and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought







—


Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 2(1), Article 3(5)(b), (7), (8) and (9)(c), Article 5, Article 7(4), Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 11(8), Article 13(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1) and (2), Article 25(1), Article 26(2)(c), Article 31(3), Article 34(2), Article 37(1)(k), (p) and (q), (3)(b) and (d) and (10) to (12), Article 38(1), Article 39(1), (4) and (8) and point I of Annex I to Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of the directive;










—


order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 30 228,84 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 2009/72/EC, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;










—


order Romania to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 3 March 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.
Case T-373/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2013 by FK (*) against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK (*) v Commission
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: rights of the defence, servant (EU), work contract




C_2013325EN.01003202.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/32






Appeal brought on 17 July 2013 by FK  (*1)against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK  (*1)v Commission
(Case T-373/13 P)
(2013/C 325/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: FK  (*1)(represented by: S. Orlandi, D. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 FK (*1)
 v European Commission











—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on single plea in law, alleging error of law, as the CST held that annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of the appellant’s contract as a member of temporary staff would place him retroactively under the system of contracts of indefinite duration. The appellant argues that that is not the case and submits that the CST infringed his right to an effective judicial remedy in finding that he could not apply for partial annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of his contract, namely that part of the decision limiting the duration of the extension in time.


(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Special Report No 3/2013 ‘Have the Marco Polo programmes been effective in shifting traffic off the road?’
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU programme, road traffic, transport planning








C_2013203EN.01000301.xml










17.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/3





Special Report No 3/2013 ‘Have the Marco Polo programmes been effective in shifting traffic off the road?’
2013/C 203/03
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 3/2013 ‘Have the Marco Polo programmes been effective in shifting traffic off the road?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case T-336/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament (Interim relief — European Parliament — Measure excluding a Member of Parliament from his political group — Application to suspend enforcement — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility of the application — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, political group (EP), political rights, rights of the defence








C_2013260EN.01004202.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/42





Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament
(Case T-336/13 R)
(Interim relief - European Parliament - Measure excluding a Member of Parliament from his political group - Application to suspend enforcement - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility of the application - Lack of urgency)
2013/C 260/75
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to suspend the enforcement of the measure 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 a non-attached member and is thus excluded from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ as from that date.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is rejected.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case T-377/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — ultra air GmbH v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy saving, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013260EN.01004901.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/49





Action brought on 17 July 2013 — ultra air GmbH v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)
(Case T-377/13)
2013/C 260/87
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2013 in Case R 1100/2011-4;










—


Order OHIM, and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH should it participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘ultra.air ultrafilter’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark No 7 480 585

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute ground of invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed; Community trade mark declared invalid

Pleas in law:







 


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










 


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










 


Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










 


Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009
Special Report No 5/2013 ‘Are EU Cohesion Policy funds well spent on roads?’
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: budgetary control, road network, structural expenditure








C_2013203EN.01000302.xml










17.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/3





Special Report No 5/2013 ‘Are EU Cohesion Policy funds well spent on roads?’
2013/C 203/04
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 5/2013 ‘Are EU Cohesion Policy funds well spent on roads?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013203EN.01000201.xml










17.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 July 2013
2013/C 203/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3118




JPY


Japanese yen


130,35




DKK


Danish krone


7,4571




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86930




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6974




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2371




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8935




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,960




HUF


Hungarian forint


292,60




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7025




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2560




RON


Romanian leu


4,4360




TRY


Turkish lira


2,5231




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4225




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3657




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1767




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6670




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6517




KRW


South Korean won


1 466,21




ZAR


South African rand


12,8506




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0479




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5235




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 278,42




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1672




PHP


Philippine peso


56,690




RUB


Russian rouble


42,5644




THB


Thai baht


40,731




BRL


Brazilian real


2,9022




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5372




INR


Indian rupee


77,5860






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-73/13: Action brought on 17th July 2013 — ZZ v ECB
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, disciplinary proceedings








C_2013274EN.01003301.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/33





Action brought on 17th July 2013 — ZZ v ECB
(Case F-73/13)
2013/C 274/55
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, Lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the ECB’s decision of 28 May 2013 imposing a disciplinary dismissal to the Applicant and the compensation of the moral prejudice he suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the European Central Bank dated 28 May 2013 imposing the disciplinary dismissal with effect from 31 August 2013;










—


as a consequence, fully reinstate the Applicant with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;










—


in any case, compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR;










—


reimburse all the costs.
Case T-374/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Moonlight v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013274EN.01001901.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/19





Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Moonlight v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)
(Case T-374/13)
2013/C 274/32
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Moonlight GmbH (Wehr, Germany) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza and M. Nielen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG (Schlitz, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 May 2013 in Case R 676/2012-4 and require OHIM to dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community trade mark No 6 084 081;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Moon’ for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark No 6 084 081

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Moonlight GmbH

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6933 — Vitol/Phillips 66 Power Operations)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, merger control








C_2013203EN.01000101.xml










17.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6933 — Vitol/Phillips 66 Power Operations)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 203/01
On 11 July 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 English 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 32013M6933. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-406/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania
Date: 2013-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, domestic market, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, natural gas








C_2013260EN.01003901.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/39





Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania
(Case C-406/13)
2013/C 260/69
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought







—


Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 3(3) and (4), Article 4(2), Article 8, Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 13(1) and (5), Article 14(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1), Article 25(5), Article 36(9)(3), Article 41(1)(d), (g) and (q), (3)(b) and (d), (6)(a) and (c), and (10) to (12), Article 42(1), Article 43(1), (4) and (8) and point 1 in Annex I to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive;










—


order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 30 228,84 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 2009/73/EC, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;










—


order Romania to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 3 March 2011.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.