do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-98/13: Action brought on 3 October 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, promotion








C_2013367EN.01004003.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/40





Action brought on 3 October 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-98/13)
2013/C 367/72
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision drawing up the list of officials promoted in 2012 in so far as, firstly, it does not include the name of the applicant among the officials in grade AST 6, not attested, promoted to grade AST 7 and, secondly, it includes the name of another official.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority drawing up the list officials promoted in 2012 in so far as, firstly, it does not include the name of the applicant among the officials in grade AST 6, not attested, promoted to grade AST 7 and, secondly, it includes the name of another official;










—


Order the Parliament to pay the costs.
Case C-369/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 4(1) and 30(3) — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Levying of charges — Infrastructure fees — Independence of infrastructure managers)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, charges for use of infrastructure, infringement of EU law, rail transport, transport infrastructure








C_2013344EN.01000901.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-369/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 4(1) and 30(3) - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Levying of charges - Infrastructure fees - Independence of infrastructure managers)
2013/C 344/12
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended, and with Articles 4(1) and (2), 14(2) and 30(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to ensure the independence of the infrastructure manager with regard to the setting of charges for access to the infrastructure and the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission, the Italian Republic and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case C-32/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n °2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA (Directive 1999/44/EC — Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product — Minor nature of that lack of conformity — Rescission of the contract not possible — Powers of the national courts)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer goods, consumer protection, jurisdiction








C_2013344EN.01001902.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/19





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA
(Case C-32/12) (1)

(Directive 1999/44/EC - Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product - Minor nature of that lack of conformity - Rescission of the contract not possible - Powers of the national courts)
2013/C 344/32
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Soledad Duarte Hueros

Defendants: Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Badajoz — Interpretation of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) — Rights of the consumer — Product with a minor lack of conformity — No repair of that product — Application for rescission of the sale — Not permissible — No alternative claim seeking an appropriate reduction in the price — Whether a national court can consider of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the national court hearing the dispute to grant of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price of goods which are the subject of a contract of sale in the case where a consumer who is entitled to such a reduction brings proceedings which are limited to seeking only rescission of that contract and such rescission cannot be granted because the lack of conformity in those goods is minor, even though that consumer is not entitled to refine his initial application or to bring a fresh action to that end.


(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7029 — ZTE Services Deutschland/Alcatel-Lucent Network Services)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2013287EN.01000501.xml










3.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/5





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7029 — ZTE Services Deutschland/Alcatel-Lucent Network Services)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 287/02
On 24 September 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 32013M7029. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case C-525/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, agricultural production, aid to agriculture, distribution of aid, interpretation of the law








C_2013377EN.01000602.xml










21.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck
(Case C-525/13)
2013/C 377/12
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vlaams Gewest

Respondent: Heidi Van Den Broeck

Question referred

Must the first paragraph of Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (1) of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 be interpreted as meaning that the refusal, for the calendar year in question, to grant ‘the aid to which the farmer would have been entitled pursuant to Article 31(2) … under the aid scheme concerned’, refers to the aid payable in implementation of ‘the aid scheme concerned’, as referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, so that it is not only the aid for the ‘crop group concerned’ which must be refused, but the entire aid payable in implementation of one of the aid schemes referred to in that provision, of which the crop group concerned forms part?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013287EN.01000601.xml










3.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 October 2013
2013/C 287/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3515




JPY


Japanese yen


131,76




DKK


Danish krone


7,4586




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83410




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6550




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2241




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1320




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,606




HUF


Hungarian forint


296,70




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7027




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2190




RON


Romanian leu


4,4500




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7275




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4458




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3988




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4799




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6410




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6917




KRW


South Korean won


1 452,74




ZAR


South African rand


13,6652




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2728




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6200




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 305,17




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3625




PHP


Philippine peso


58,699




RUB


Russian rouble


43,6318




THB


Thai baht


42,287




BRL


Brazilian real


2,9927




MXN


Mexican peso


17,8303




INR


Indian rupee


84,5920






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-121/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01002501.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/25





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA
(Case C-121/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
2013/C 344/41
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (represented by: F. Baujoin, avocate)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09 Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires, by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the proprietor of certain national and Community word marks, a national figurative mark and a business name containing the word ‘PROTI’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, for the annulment of Decision R 1660/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 21 January 2009 which had dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Mr Rintisch against registration of the word mark ‘PROTIVITAL’ in respect of goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Case C-170/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict — Copyright — Material support reproducing a protected work — Placing on line — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, jurisdiction, offence








C_2013344EN.01002701.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/27





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG
(Case C-170/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict - Copyright - Material support reproducing a protected work - Placing on line - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)
2013/C 344/45
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peter Pinckney

Defendant: KDG Mediatech AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of 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) — Jurisdiction of the national court in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Criteria for determining the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Infringement of copyright caused by the placing on-line of dematerialised content or a material carrier medium reproducing the content — Content directed at the public

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the Member State of the court seised, the latter has jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another Member State and which has, in the latter State, reproduced that work on a material support which is subsequently sold by companies established in a third Member State through an internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the Member State within which it is situated.


(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
Case C-78/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial proceedings, lawyer, legal aid








C_2013377EN.01000502.xml










21.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/5





Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania
(Case C-78/13 P)
2013/C 377/09
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Appellant: Constantin Hârsulescu (represented by: I.L. Cioplea, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Romania
By order of 3 October 2013, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and the application for legal aid.
Case C-59/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Scope — Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system — Fund established as a public law body)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, comparative advertising, financial institution, health insurance








C_2013344EN.01002002.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/20





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
(Case C-59/12) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Scope - Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system - Fund established as a public law body)
2013/C 344/34
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of the same directive — Scope — ‘Commercial practices’ and ‘trader’ — Advertisements of a statutory health insurance fund containing misleading information in relation to the drawbacks flowing from a potential change of health insurance fund for its clients.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted to the effect that a public law body charged with a task of public interest, such as the management of a statutory health insurance fund, falls within the persons covered by the directive.


(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
Case C-120/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
Date: 2013-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01002402.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/24





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS
(Case C-120/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
2013/C 344/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09 Rintisch v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of national word and figurative marks ‘PROTI’, ‘PROTIPOWER’ and ‘PROTIPLUS’ for goods in Classes 29 and 32, and the national trade name ‘PROTITOP’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32, against decision R 740/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 15 December 2008, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition filed by the applicant in respect of registration of the word mark ‘PROTI SNACK’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Late submission of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.