do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-121/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: transfer of pension rights








C_2014052EN.01005303.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/53





Action brought on 16 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-121/13)
2014/C 52/104
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIPs to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 15 April 2013 calculating the bonus on his pension rights acquired before his entry into the service of the Commission;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-665/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bonus payment, civil servant, equal treatment








C_2014085EN.01001202.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA
(Case C-665/13)
2014/C 85/21
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

Defendant: Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

Questions referred







1.


Must the principle of equal treatment, from which the prohibition of discrimination is derived, be interpreted as applying to public sector employees?










2.


Does the fact that the State imposed a unilateral suspension of the payment of those items of remuneration and applied this only to a specific category of workers — those in the public sector — constitute discrimination having regard to the nature of the employment relationship?
Case C-668/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (România) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, bilateral agreement, political refugee, return migration, social-security benefit, social-security contribution








C_2014085EN.01001301.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (România) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou
(Case C-668/13)
2014/C 85/23
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani

Defendant: Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one State to nationals of the other State who had been political refugees in the territory of the first State and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second State, in exchange for a payment by the first State of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?


(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
2013/810/EU: Council Decision of 16 December 2013 appointing three Belgian members of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belgium, European Committee of the Regions, appointment of members








L_2013355EN.01009001.xml










31.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 355/90








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 16 December 2013
         
appointing three Belgian members of the Committee of the Regions
(2013/810/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Belgian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).












(2)


Three members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Xavier DESGAIN, Mr Jean-François ISTASSE and Mr Michel LEBRUN.





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed as members to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:






—


Mr Xavier DESGAIN, Conseiller communal à Charleroi











—


Mr Jean-François ISTASSE, Conseiller communal à Verviers











—


Mr Michel LEBRUN, Conseiller communal à Viroinval.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 16 December 2013.


For the Council


The President

V. JUKNA
            





(1)  
            OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22 and OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
Case C-669/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Mundipharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-328/12 Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014085EN.01001302.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/13





Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Mundipharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-328/12 Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-669/13 P)
2014/C 85/24
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Mundipharma GmbH (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 (Case T-328/12);










—


Order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue OXYGESIC and Maxigesic and thus that the requirements of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) had not been satisfied. The judgment under appeal is based on a distortion of the facts and contains contradictions which infringe the general rules of logic. It constitutes an infringement of Community law, namely of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. If the General Court had carried out a correct and non-contradictory assessment of the facts of the case, it would have reached the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and would therefore have upheld the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 May 2012.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-679/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, abuse of power, equal treatment, fringe benefit, infringement of EU law, party financing, political parties, powers of the institutions (EU), redemption, rights of the defence








C_2014085EN.01002101.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/21





Action brought on 16 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament
(Case T-679/13)
2014/C 85/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alliance of European National Movements (AENM) (Matzenheim, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2013, partially repeated by the decision of 14 October 2013, and which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements must reimburse EUR 45 476,00 having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those it relies on in Case T-678/13 AENM v Parliament.
Case F-162/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1 st Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — CL v EEA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Sick leave — Reintegration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Psychological harrassment)
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: psychological harassment, servant (EU), sick leave








C_2014039EN.01002902.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/29





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — CL v EEA
(Case F-162/12) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Sick leave - Reintegration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Psychological harrassment)
2014/C 39/54
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: O. Cornu, Agent, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to reintegrate the applicant following sick leave after the date at which he should have been capable of work according to medical opinion.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed;










2.


CL is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Environment Agency.






(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013, p. 30.
2013/797/EU: Council Implementing Decision of 16 December 2013 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, credit institution, division of powers, financial intervention, market intervention








L_2013352EN.01005001.xml










24.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 352/50








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION
         
of 16 December 2013
         
implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions
(2013/797/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (1), and in particular Article 26(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 October 2013, the Council adopted Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions.












(2)


The planning and execution of the tasks conferred on the ECB should be fully undertaken by an internal body composed of its Chair and Vice Chair and four representatives of the ECB and one representative of the national competent authority in each participating Member State (‘Supervisory Board’).












(3)


The Supervisory Board should be an essential body in the exercise of supervisory tasks by the ECB, tasks which until now have always been in the hands of national competent authorities. For this reason, the Council should be given the power to adopt an implementing decision to appoint i.a. the Chair of the Supervisory Board.












(4)


In accordance with Article 26(3) of the above-mentioned Regulation, and after hearing the Supervisory Board, the ECB submitted a proposal for the appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board to the European Parliament for approval on 22 November. The European Parliament approved this proposal on 11 December.












(5)


Subsequently, on 11 December 2013, the ECB submitted to the Council a proposal for the appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board.





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Danièle NOUY is appointed as Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.





Done at Brussels, 16 December 2013.


For the Council


The President

V. JUKNA
            





(1)  
            OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63.
Case T-663/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 October 2013 in Case F-69/11, BF v Court of Auditors
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, appointment of staff, managing director








C_2014052EN.01003901.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/39





Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 October 2013 in Case F-69/11, BF v Court of Auditors
(Case T-663/13 P)
2014/C 52/75
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by T. Kennedy and J. Vermer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: BF (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-69/11;










—


grant the form of order sought at first instance by the Court of Auditors, namely dismiss the action as unfounded;










—


order BF to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 6 of Decision 45-2010 of 17 June 2010 on the selection procedures for Heads of Unit and Directors.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the evidence by the Civil Service Tribunal in considering that the scores awarded to the candidates by the Pre-selection Committee constituted information that must be included in the report submitted by the Pre-selection Committee to the appointing authority.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal acted in breach of its obligation to examine the facts on the basis of which it found there to be a procedural irregularity.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and an error of law undermining the consistency of the case-law in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the irregularity relating to the failure to state reasons required by Article 6(1) of Decision 45-2010 with regard to the report of the Pre-selection Committee is liable to lead to the annulment of the decisions contested at first instance.
Case F-30/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — Roda v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Death of former spouse — Maintenance — Pre-litigation procedure — Requirement of a complaint — Unduly late — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrative procedure, divorced person, maintenance obligation, survivor's benefit








C_2014039EN.01003001.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/30





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2013 — Roda v Commission
(Case F-30/13)
(Civil service - Survivor’s pension - Death of former spouse - Maintenance - Pre-litigation procedure - Requirement of a complaint - Unduly late - Manifest inadmissibility)
2014/C 39/55
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Silvana Roda (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request to receive a survivor’s pension at the rate of 60 % of the last basic salary of her late ex-husband.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Ms Roda is ordered to bear her own costs.
Case C-667/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Portuguese State v Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, suspension of aid








C_2014093EN.01001902.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Portuguese State v Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação
(Case C-667/13)
2014/C 93/31
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Portuguese State

Defendant: Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

Questions referred







1.


Is the Decision (1) vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons on the ground that:






(a)


it failed to state the reason why the guarantee provided by the Portuguese State affects trade between Member States?










(b)


it failed to specify the reason why the aid granted in the form of a guarantee, which was initially considered to be covered by Article 107(3) TFEU, was then declared to be incompatible with the common market?














2.


Is the Decision vitiated by a contradiction between its statement of reasons and its enacting terms as to the date from which the [aid] is to be considered unlawful: 5 December 2008 or 5 June 2009?










3.


Does the Decision infringe Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as the aid granted did not affect trade between Member States, particularly in view of the purpose of the loan and the actual use made of it and the fact that the beneficiary has not carried out its activities since 1 December 2008?










4.


Does the decision infringe Article 107(3) TFEU, insofar as the aid was intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and, as such, is compatible with the common market?










5.


Do paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2) preclude, in this specific case, a reduction in the amount to be recovered, when that provision is applicable, without discrimination, to all creditors of the insolvent company?






(1)  2011/346/EU: Commission Decision of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C-33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (notified under document C(2010) 4932) — OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty — OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
Case T-665/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO)
Date: 2013-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001301.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/13





Action brought on 16 December 2013 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO)
(Case T-665/13)
2014/C 61/22
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gamepoint BV (The Hague, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2013 given in Case R 1388/2012-4;










—


Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The coloured figurative mark in colours containing the verbal element ‘SPIN BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 545 658

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘ZITRO SPIN BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 9 058 868

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.