do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-67/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Rihn v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff)
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Europol, indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2014253EN.01007001.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/70





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Rihn v Europol
(Case F-67/13) (1)

((Civil service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff))
2014/C 253/98
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Philippe Rihn (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: initially, J. Arnould and D. Neumann, Agents, then J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Rihn to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 31.
Case C-305/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014  — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, Romania, administrative sanction, application of EU law, freedom of assembly








C_2014329EN.01000201.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare
(Case C-305/14)
2014/C 329/02
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Sergiu Lucian Băbășan

Respondent: Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

Questions referred







1)


Are the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also directly applicable in Romania with respect to EU citizens?










2)


Must Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as permitting citizens of the Union to be required to observe provisions of the national law of the Member States, such as the mandatory rules laid down in Article 12(1), together with the penalty provided for in Article 26(1)(a), of Law No 60/1991 of Romania on the organisation and the conduct of public meetings?
Case F-66/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Molina Solano v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff)
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Europol, indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2014253EN.01006902.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/69





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Molina Solano v Europol
(Case F-66/13) (1)

((Staff cases - Europol Staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to Europol agents - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff))
2014/C 253/97
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Beatriz Molina Solano (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented initially by J. Arnould and D. Neumann, agents, and then by J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Declares that Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.






(1)  OJ C 274 of 21/09/2013, p. 30.
Case F-57/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrative sanction, damages, indemnification








C_2014421EN.01006001.xml










24.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/60





Action brought on 25 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-57/14)
2014/C 421/86
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to impose a disciplinary penalty consisting of a reprimand on the applicant following a disciplinary enquiry and the award of damages.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 19 March 2014, notified on 20 March 2014 and, so far as is necessary, the decision dated 6 September 2013 adopted by the DG Human Resources and Security;










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum calculated ex aequo et bono of EUR 5  000;










—


Order the Commission to pay the Costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7289 — Golden Agri-Resources/Cepsa Química/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Indonesia, chemical alcohol, economic concentration, energy industry, investment company, merger control, plastics, polishing and scouring preparations, raw material, textile industry, vegetable oil








C_2014195EN.01000201.xml










25.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7289 — Golden Agri-Resources/Cepsa Química/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 195/02






1.


On 13 June 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Cepsa Química S.A. (‘CEPSA CQ’, Spain), belonging to the IPIC Group (‘IPIC’, Abu Dhabi) and Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (‘GAR’, Singapore), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Sinarmas Cepsa Pte (‘JV’, Singapore), a wholly owned subsidiary of GAR, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CEPSA CQ, production and sale of raw materials to make detergents and for the polyester industry, as well as cumene, phenol and acetone for manufacturing resins, high technology plastics, synthetic fibres, pharmaceutical products and a long list of end uses,










—


IPIC, investments in the energy sector,










—


GAR, sustainable palm oil production in Indonesia, trading and refining crude palm oil into value-added products such as cooking oil, margarine and shortening,










—


the JV, development, formulation, production, marketing distribution and sale of fatty alcohols at global level.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7289 — Project Golden Agri-Resources/Cepsa Química/JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative competition, job vacancy








CA2014195EN.01000501.xml










25.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 195/5





REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS
2014/C 195 A/02
Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.






5


 




6


 




11


 




19


 




21


 




26


 




27


 




30


(PL)




35


 




41


(DE/EN/FR)




42


 




43


 




46


 




47


 




48


 




55


 




56


 




60


 




62


 




65


 




73


(DE/EN/FR)




74


 




81


 




88


 




92


(DE/EN/FR)




97


 




98


 




99


 




108


 




109


 




116


 




119


 




133


 




134


 




136


 




137


(DE/EN/FR)




140


 




145


 




152


 




160


 




163


 




164


 




176


 




178


 




180


 




182


 




185


 




186


 




188


 




195
Case T-486/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Stavytskyi v Council
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, access to EU information, civil servant, criminal procedure, foreign policy, international cooperation, international sanctions, legal basis, rights of the defence








C_2014303EN.01004501.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/45





Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Stavytskyi v Council
(Case T-486/14)
2014/C 303/53
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and M. Gambardella, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014, implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 111, p. 91), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014, implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 111, p. 33), in so far as the contested acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;










—


Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give notice, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, incorrect legal basis, and manifest error of assessment.
The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council failed to notify the Contested Acts to the applicant, and in any case these acts contained an insufficient statement of reasons. Requests for access to information and documents have not been replied to by the Council. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Further, the measures taken by the Council do not constitute foreign policy measures, but instead constitute international cooperation in criminal proceedings, which accordingly have been adopted on an incorrect legal basis. Finally, the measures taken by the Council were adopted without proper consideration of relevant facts as well as the case law from the European Court of Human Rights pertaining to criminal procedures in Ukraine, especially in relation to the prosecution of former government officers.
Case T-224/12: Order of the General Court of 25 June 2014  — Accorinti and Others v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of the Greek Government debt — Eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by Greece for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations — Sufficient maintenance of the credit quality threshold in order to remain eligible — Collateral enhancement in the form of a buy-back scheme for debt instruments for the benefit of the national central banks — Private creditors — Whether certain legal effects may be attributed to the contested measure — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, bond, credit guarantee, economic stabilisation, public debt








C_2014315EN.01004901.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/49





Order of the General Court of 25 June 2014 — Accorinti and Others v ECB
(Case T-224/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek Government debt - Eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by Greece for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations - Sufficient maintenance of the credit quality threshold in order to remain eligible - Collateral enhancement in the form of a buy-back scheme for debt instruments for the benefit of the national central banks - Private creditors - Whether certain legal effects may be attributed to the contested measure - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
2014/C 315/83
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Alessandro Accorinti (Nichelino, Italy) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: S. Sutti and R. Spelta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: initially A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, S. Bening and P. Papapaschalis, and subsequently S. Bening and P. Papapaschalis, Agents, and E. Castellani, T. Lübbig and B. Kaiser, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision 2012/153/EU of the European Central Bank of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (ECB/2012/3) (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


Mr Alessandro Accorinti and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Case T-28/14: Order of the General Court of 25 June 2014  — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman (Seated figure)
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014303EN.01005802.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/58





Order of the General Court of 25 June 2014 — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman (Seated figure)
(Case T-28/14) (1)

2014/C 303/70
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
Case T-471/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Ibercaja Banco and Others v Commission
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, domestic market, hire purchase, investment








C_2014261EN.01004601.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/46





Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Ibercaja Banco and Others v Commission
(Case T-471/14)
2014/C 261/73
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Ibercaja Banco, SA (Zaragoza, Spain); Banco Grupo Cajatres SA (Zaragoza); and Naviera Bósforo, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case F-119/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff)
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Europol, indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2014253EN.01006702.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/67





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer v Europol
(Case F-119/12) (1)

((Staff cases - Europol Staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to Europol agents - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff))
2014/C 253/94
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Stephanie Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented initially by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and then by J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and for Europol to be ordered to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other compensation that she actually received

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Declares that Ms Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.






(1)  OJ C 379 of 08/12/2012, p. 36.
Case C-76/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications — Networks and services — Designation of the undertakings responsible for universal service obligations — Incorrect transposition — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment)
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, infringement of EU law, liberalisation of the market, periodic penalty payment, public contract, public service, telecommunications, universal service








C_2014292EN.01000502.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-76/13) (1)

((Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Designation of the undertakings responsible for universal service obligations - Incorrect transposition - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum payment))
2014/C 292/06
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade, G. Braun, L. Nicolae and M. Heller, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent, assisted by L. Morais, advogado)

Operative part of the judgment







1)


By failing to adopt all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (C-154/09, EU:C:2010:591), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.










2)


The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 3 million.










3)


The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 10  000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (C-154/09, EU:C:2010:591), from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date of full compliance with that judgment.










4)


The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.