do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-120/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Coutureau 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.01006801.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/68





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Coutureau v Europol
(Case F-120/12) (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 253/95
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Christèle Coutureau (Rijswijk, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and an application to order Europol to pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other damages which she actually received.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Coutureau to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8/8/2012, p. 36.
Case C-37/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Nexans SA, Nexans France v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Administrative procedure — Inspection — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable grounds — Geographic market)
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, competition, electric cable, judicial review, protection of privacy








C_2014292EN.01000501.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Nexans SA, Nexans France v European Commission
(Case C-37/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Administrative procedure - Inspection - Decision ordering an inspection - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable grounds - Geographic market))
2014/C 292/05
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Nexans SA, Nexans France (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, J.-P. Tran-Thiet, avocat, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, J. Bourke and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the appeal.










2)


Orders Nexans SA and Nexans France SAS to pay the costs of the present appeal.






(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Case T-474/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Cesáreo Martín-Sanz 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.01004801.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/48





Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Cesáreo Martín-Sanz and Others v Commission
(Case T-474/14)
2014/C 261/76
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Cesáreo Martín-Sanz, SA Transportes (Madrid, Spain); Transportes y Servicios de Minería, SA (Madrid); Inauto, Industrias del Automóvil, SA (Madrid); Premium Quality Investments, SL (Madrid); and Naviera Ispaster, AIE (Madrid) (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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7279 — Apollo / Endemol) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, television








C_2014195EN.01000301.xml










25.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7279 — Apollo / Endemol)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 195/03






1.


On 17 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 Apollo Management L.P. (‘Apollo’, the United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Endemol Holding BV (‘Endemol’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Apollo: portfolio investments,
—   for Endemol: production and distribution of TV content.










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.7279 — Apollo / Endemol, 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.
Case F-121/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Maynard 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.01006901.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 — Maynard v Europol
(Case F-121/12) (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 253/96
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

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

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and an application to order Europol to pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other damages which she actually received.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Maynard to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8/12/2012, p. 36.
Case T-473/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Corporación Alimentaria Guissona and Naviera Muriola v Commission
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, domestic market, hire purchase, investment








C_2014261EN.01004702.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/47





Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Corporación Alimentaria Guissona and Naviera Muriola v Commission
(Case T-473/14)
2014/C 261/75
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Corporación Alimentaria Guissona, SA (Lleida, Spain); and Naviera Muriola, AIE (Madrid, 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.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 714/2014 of 25 June 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for Bluefin tuna in Atlantic Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean by vessels flying the flag of Greece
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Greece, Mediterranean Sea, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, fishing vessel, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2014190EN.01000601.xml










28.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 190/6








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 714/2014
of 25 June 2014
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for Bluefin tuna in Atlantic Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean by vessels flying the flag of Greece


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 (2), lays down quotas for 2014.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2014.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 June 2014.


For the Commission


On behalf of the President,

Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


07/TQ43




Member State


Greece




Stock


BFT/AE45WM




Species


Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus Thynnus)





Zone


Atlantic Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean




Closing date


28.3.2014
Case C-306/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 June 2014  — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcohol, excise duty, industrial manufacturing, polishing and scouring preparations, principle of legal certainty, tax exemption, tax harmonisation








C_2014303EN.01002601.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD
(Case C-306/14)
2014/C 303/33
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Biovet AD

Questions referred







1.


What is the meaning of the term ‘manufacturing process’ in Article 27(2)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and does that term include cleaning and/or disinfection as processes for achieving specific degrees of cleanliness which are prescribed by good practice in the manufacture of medicinal products?










2.


Does Article 27(2)(d) of Directive 92/83 permit the enactment of a legal provision under which, after the Member States have introduced legislation exempting alcohol from harmonised excise duty on condition that the alcohol is used in a manufacturing process and that the end product does not contain any alcohol, alcohol used for cleaning is deemed, for the purposes of the application of that exemption, not to have been used in a manufacturing process?










3.


Having regard to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, is it permissible for a deeming provision such as that in Article 22(7) ZADS (Bulgarian Law on excise duties and tax warehouses) to be enacted with immediate effect (that is to say, without providing any reasonable period for market participants to adjust their behaviour) if it restricts refunds of excise duty on alcohol used as a cleaning material in the case where the exemption from excise duty has been enacted by the Member State within the scope of its discretion?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7190 — Bekaert/Maccaferri/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, environmental education, merger control, steel, technology








C_2014195EN.01000401.xml










25.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7190 — Bekaert/Maccaferri/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 195/04






1.


On 18 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 NV Bekaert SA (‘Bekaert’, Belgium) and Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. (‘Maccaferri’, Italy), a wholly-owned subsidiary of S.E.C.I. S.p.A., acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (‘JV’, Belgium) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bekaert: steel wire transformation and coatings,
—   for Maccaferri: environmental engineering,
—   for the JV: sale and distribution of various underground and tunnelling products and solutions.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7190 — Bekaert/Maccaferri/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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014195EN.01000101.xml










25.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 June 2014
2014/C 195/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3618




JPY


Japanese yen


138,80




DKK


Danish krone


7,4548




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80150




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1516




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2173




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3035




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,443




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,73




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1540




RON


Romanian leu


4,3865




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9065




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4490




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4615




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5561




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5639




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7012




KRW


South Korean won


1 387,00




ZAR


South African rand


14,3666




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4852




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5763




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 328,71




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3761




PHP


Philippine peso


59,788




RUB


Russian rouble


46,0550




THB


Thai baht


44,154




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0212




MXN


Mexican peso


17,7300




INR


Indian rupee


81,8714






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-472/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Joyería Tous v Commission
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, domestic market, hire purchase, investment








C_2014261EN.01004701.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/47





Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Joyería Tous v Commission
(Case T-472/14)
2014/C 261/74
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Joyería Tous, SA (Lleida, 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 applicant claims 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.