do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-454/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek
Date: 2013-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, local tax, transmission network








C_2013313EN.01001301.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek
(Case C-454/13)
2013/C 313/22
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Belgacom SA

Defendant: Commune d’Etterbeek

Question referred

Must Articles 12 and 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 (‘Authorisation Directive’) (1) be interpreted as precluding the introduction, for budgetary purposes, by legislation of a national or local authority, of a tax on mobile communications infrastructures, installed on public or private property, used to carry on activities provided for in the general authorisation?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
Case T-416/13: Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission
Date: 2013-08-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, abuse of power, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, sporting event








C_2013313EN.01002901.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/29





Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission
(Case T-416/13)
2013/C 313/55
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd (Valletta, Malta); and Stanley International Betting Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Jacchia, I. Picciano, A. Terranova, F. Ferraro, G. Dellis, P. Kakouris, and I. Koimitzoglou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013, to close the complaint filed by the applicants against the Hellenic Republic and the Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics (OPAP) in case COMP/39.981; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence, and a manifest error of fact in assessing the arguments set out in the complaint with reference to Article 102 TFEU, the concrete and autonomous abuse or abuses of dominance committed by OPAP and the relevant market definition.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to state reasons and a breach of Article 296 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission and breach of the principle of autonomous nature and objectives of competition rules.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of law, failure to assess the compatibility of the relevant Greek legislation with Union law, prior to conducting the assessment of an infringement under Article 102 TFEU, and breach of the right to a good and diligent administration conferred by Article 41(1) of the Charter of Rights, and the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence with reference to Article 106 TFEU.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 768/2013 of 8 August 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products ( OJ L 214, 9.8.2013 )
Date: 2013-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, aid to agriculture, apiculture, payment








L_2013217EN.01004001.xml










13.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 217/40







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 768/2013 of 8 August 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 214 of 9 August 2013
)

On the cover page and on page 7, the adoption date (title and signature) of the Regulation:
for:

               ‘
               8 August 2013
               ’,
read:

               ‘
               9 August 2013
               ’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013234EN.01000601.xml










13.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 August 2013
2013/C 234/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3280




JPY


Japanese yen


128,66




DKK


Danish krone


7,4592




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85860




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6792




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2327




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8085




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,880




HUF


Hungarian forint


297,09




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7026




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1888




RON


Romanian leu


4,4241




TRY


Turkish lira


2,5566




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4496




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3693




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2992




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6580




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6765




KRW


South Korean won


1 480,85




ZAR


South African rand


13,1175




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1301




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5355




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 677,29




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3140




PHP


Philippine peso


57,970




RUB


Russian rouble


43,8046




THB


Thai baht


41,487




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0253




MXN


Mexican peso


16,7753




INR


Indian rupee


81,3730






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-418/13: Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Richter + Frenzel GmbH v OHIM — Richter (Richter+Frenzel)
Date: 2013-08-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mechanical engineering, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013325EN.01003302.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/33





Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Richter + Frenzel GmbH v OHIM — Richter (Richter+Frenzel)
(Case T-418/13)
2013/C 325/56
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Richter + Frenzel GmbH + Co. KG (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:Ferdinand Richter GmbH (Pasching, Austria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2013 (R 2001/2011-4);










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Richter+Frenzel’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 Community trade mark application No 8 545 998

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ferdinand Richter GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘RICHTER’, the figurative mark ‘RICHTER edition’ and the non-registered mark ‘Richter’ used in the course of trade in Austria

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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