do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision of 2 September 2013 adopting the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014
Date: 2013-09-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU expenditure, budget appropriation, draft budget (EU), general budget (EU), revenue








C_2013256EN.01001201.xml










5.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/12





COUNCIL DECISION
of 2 September 2013
adopting the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014
2013/C 256/05
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314(3) thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Whereas:






—


on 28 June 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 (1),










—


the Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (2), and on the expenditure side, with the contents of the agreement in principle reached on 27 June 2013 on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 was adopted by the Council on 2 September 2013.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 2 September 2013.


For the Council


The President

L. LINKEVIČIUS




(1)  COM(2013) 450 final.

(2)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.
Case T-488/13: Action brought on 2 September 2013 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)
Date: 2013-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, technology, trade-mark law








C_2013352EN.01001602.xml










30.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/16





Action brought on 2 September 2013 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)
(Case T-488/13)
2013/C 352/30
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by J. Schneiders, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2013 (Case R 0935/2012-4;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘engineering for a better world’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 244 416

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 2 September 2013 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de España (ECB/2013/32)
Date: 2013-09-02
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: Spain, accountant, appointment of staff, auditing, central bank, self-employed person








C_2013264EN.01000101.xml










13.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/1





RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 2 September 2013
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de España
(ECB/2013/32)
2013/C 264/01
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of the Banco de España’s current external auditors ended following the audit for the financial year 2012. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2013.










(3)


The Banco de España has selected KPMG Auditores, S.L. as its external auditors for the financial years 2013 to 2017,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that KPMG Auditores, S.L. should be appointed as the external auditors of the Banco de España for the financial years 2013 to 2017.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 2 September 2013.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
Case C-471/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2013-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2013344EN.01004502.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/45





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-471/13)
2013/C 344/78
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peter Link

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is there also a right to compensation analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) where the arrival of the flight originally booked by the passengers is delayed by more than three hours, the passengers however in the meantime –after a long flight departure delay had already occurred — voluntarily, autonomously and on their own account arranged replacement transportation with another airline company and therefore do not travel on the originally booked flight, the passengers arriving at the destination airport, on the replacement transportation, at a time which is more than three hours after the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked?










2.


If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: is it decisive for the creation of a right analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that the voluntary and autonomous choice of replacement transportation with another airline company is made at a time when the delay in any event is already five hours pursuant to Article 6(1)(c)(iii) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?






(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 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-470/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság — Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
Date: 2013-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, economic activity, interpretation of the law, services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2013367EN.01002101.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság — Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
(Case C-470/13)
2013/C 367/36
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt.

Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság — Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Questions referred







1.


May the Member States exclude an economic operator from participating in a procedure for the award of a public contract on grounds other than those listed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (in particular, on grounds that are considered to be justified from the point of view of protecting the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authority or fair competition and the maintenance of lawfulness in competition) and, if so, is the provision of such exclusion in relation to an economic operator that has committed an infringement related to his economic or professional activity and established by court judgment which has the authority of res judicata given not more than five years ago compatible with the second recital in the preamble to that directive and with Articles 18 TFEU, 34 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU?










2.


If the Court of Justice should answer the first question in the negative, must the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18, in particular points (c) and (d) of that provision, be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to exclude from the procedure for the award of a public contract any economic operator who has committed an infringement established by an administrative or judicial authority in competition proceedings initiated on account of his economic or professional activity, legal consequences in matters of competition having been applied to the economic operator, as a result of that infringement?






(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).