do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-518/12: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Spirlea v Commission (Action for annulment  — Public health  — Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure  — Closure of the file on a complaint  — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations  — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: application of EU law, project management, public health








C_2014135EN.01003801.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/38






Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Spirlea v Commission
(Case T-518/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Public health - Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure - Closure of the file on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility))
(2014/C 135/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy); and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. Wilms, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision to bring an end to EU pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO, as referred to in the letter of 27 September 2012, sent to the applicants under reference SANCO/A2/AM/kva (2012) 1245353.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.










3.


The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
Euro area.
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: euro, euro area, monetary integration, public awareness campaign

When was the 
€ launched? The euro was 
launched on 1 January 1999. For the first three 
years, it was an invisible currency used mainly for 
non-cash payments. Euro banknotes and coins were 
introduced in twelve countries on 1 January 2002.  

Who issues the 
banknotes? The European 
Central Bank has the exclusive right to authorise 
the issue of euro banknotes by the national central 
banks within the euro area. These banks are then 
responsible for producing the notes and putting them 
into circulation.

In which countries of  

the EU is the € used? Today 
the euro is legal tender in the following 18 

countries of the European Union: Belgium, 
Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, 

uro area

E

France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, 
Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland. 

Is the € used 
anywhere else? The euro 
is indeed used outside the EU. Andorra, 
Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City 

have concluded monetary agreements 
with the EU and use the euro as their official 

currency, while Kosovo and Montenegro use 

it as de facto domestic currency. 

How many different banknotes 
are there? There are seven denominations of 
euro banknotes: €5, €10, €20, €50, €100, €200 and 
€500. Euro banknotes share the same designs 
across all countries in the euro area.  

www.european-council.europa.eu
www.consilium.europa.eu
www.eurozone.europa.eu

How many different coins 

are there? Euro coins have eight 

© European Union, 2014 – Q

different denominations: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 
50 cents, €1 and €2. Unlike banknotes, 
which are the same in all euro area 
countries, the coins have one common 
side and one country-specific side.

L-
0
4
-
1
4
-
0
8
7
-
E
N
-
D

Who issues the coins? 
The euro area countries are responsible 
for issuing the coins. In addition, 
Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the 
Vatican City are also entitled to mint 
limited quantities of their own euro coins 

under agreements with the EU.

What are the advantages 

of the €? There are many advantages both for 
individuals and businesses: no need to change currencies 
when travelling, easier to compare prices in different 
EU countries, more stable prices, a stronger 
presence for the EU in the global economy. With 
the US dollar, the euro is one of the main 
international trade currencies, and a 
tangible sign of the European 
identity.
Case F-20/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014  — ZZ v EESC
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, early retirement, transfer of pension rights








C_2014175EN.01005501.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/55





Action brought on 10 March 2014 — ZZ v EESC
(Case F-20/14)
2014/C 175/78
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Nikolajsen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request to be entitled to early retirement without a reduction of his pension rights, pursuant to Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of the EESC refusing to allow the applicant to benefit, in respect of 2013, from Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in the version applicable until 31 December 2013;










—


order the EESC to pay the costs.
Case T-411/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM) (Community trade mark  — Opposition procedure  — Withdrawal of the opposition  — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014135EN.01003601.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/36






Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM)
(Case T-411/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2014/C 135/45)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hemofarm AD farmaceutsko-hemijska industrija Vršac (Vršac, Serbia) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2011 (Case R 298/2010-4), concerning an opposition procedure between Laboratorios Diafarm, SA and Hemofarm AD farmaceutsko-hemijska industrija Vršac.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


All the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
Case T-430/10: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Commission (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register)
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cement, dismissal, magnesium, oxide, pollution control, prevention of pollution, processing industry








C_2014135EN.01003402.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/34






Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Commission
(Case T-430/10) (1)

((Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries - Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - Dismissal - Discontinuance - Removal from the register))
(2014/C 135/43)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Magnesitas de Rubián, SA (Incio, Spain); Magnesitas Navarras, SA (Zubiri, Spain); and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Re:

Principally, application for the annulment of Chapter 3 of the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (OJ 2010 C 166), entitled ‘Magnesium Oxide Industry (dry process route based on mined natural magnesite)’, and the references to the magnesium oxide industry in that document and, in the alternative, application for the annulment of point 3.5.5.4 of that document.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.










2.


Case T-430/10 is removed from the Register of the General Court.










3.


Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Case T-158/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Parliament and Council (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register)
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: industrial pollution, magnesium, oxide, pollution control, prevention of pollution, processing industry








C_2014135EN.01003501.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/35






Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-158/11) (1)

((Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU - Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - Dismissal - Discontinuance - Removal from the register))
(2014/C 135/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Magnesitas de Rubián, SA (Incio, Spain); Magnesitas Navarras, SA (Zubiri, Spain); and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: initially M. Gómez-Leal, I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, and subsequently M. Gómez-Leal and M. Visaggio, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and K. Michoel, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Alcover San Pedro and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, and subsequently by S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the individual decision contained in Article 13(7) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17), insofar as it imposes an obligation on the Member States to respect the conclusions on best available techniques contained in section 3.5 of the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (OJ 2010 C 166, p. 5), as regards the conditions of the permits which the competent authorities grant to manufacturing facilities for magnesium subject to permits under that directive.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.










2.


Case T-158/11 is removed from the Register of the General Court.










3.


Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










4.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
Case C-114/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014 – European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, VAT, infringement of EU law, postal service, public service, tax exemption








C_2014135EN.01002601.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/26






Action brought on 10 March 2014 – European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-114/14)
(2014/C 135/31)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to exempt postal services supplied by the public postal services and the supply of goods incidental thereto from value added tax and by failing to exempt the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within the country from value added tax, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. (1)











—


order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission has brought an action against the Kingdom of Sweden under Article 258 TFEU on the following grounds.
Article 132(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112 states that the Member States are to exempt the supply by the public postal services of services and the supply of goods incidental thereto from liability for tax.
Article 135(1)(h) of Directive 2006/112 provides that the Member States are to exempt the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services from liability for tax.
The Kingdom of Sweden has instructed Posten AB to supply the universal services involving the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable prices for all users in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service. (2)

The Commission is of the opinion that Posten AB, by supplying the universal services described in Article 3 of Directive 97/67, constitutes a public postal service within the meaning of Article 132 of Directive 2006/112.
The Kingdom of Sweden has failed to exempt the postal services supplied by Posten AB and the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within the country from liability for tax.


(1)  
            OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.
Case C-116/14: Action brought on 10 March 2014  — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, infringement of EU law, transport infrastructure, transport safety








C_2014135EN.01002701.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/27






Action brought on 10 March 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-116/14)
(2014/C 135/32)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court of Justice shall:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate the necessary guidelines, the Portuguese Republic has not complied with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management;










—


order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must ensure that guidelines, if they do not already exist, are adopted by 19 December 2011, in order to support the competent entities in the application of the directive.
More than two years after the expiry of the deadline for adopting those guidelines, Portugal has still not adopted them.
Under Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must communicate those guidelines to the Commission within three months of their adoption.
As Portugal has not adopted any guidelines, it has failed to comply with the obligation to communicate.


(1)  
            OJ 2008 L 319, p. 59
Case C-590/12: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) — Germany) — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
Date: 2014-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance premium, interpretation of the law, life assurance








C_2014184EN.01002204.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/22





Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) — Germany) — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
(Case C-590/12) (1)

2014/C 184/32
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.