do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-586/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, export price, glass, import (EU), infringement of EU law, originating product, production cost








C_2014372EN.01002001.xml










20.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/20





Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission
(Case T-586/14)
2014/C 372/25
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Anhui, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China, as far as it applies to Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd; and










—


Order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the law in considering that the applicant’s production costs and financial situation are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, third indent.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and failed to adduce consistent evidence in deducting from the applicant’s export price a sales agent commission equivalent to the mark-up charged to the applicant by a related company in Hong Kong, without adducing adequate evidence that this related company was indeed operating as a commission-based agent, in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not calculate the applicant’s export price on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold to the EU, nor is it based on the price at which the exported product is first resold to an independent buyer in the EU, in breach of Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.










4.


The fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to disclose the essential facts and evidences making it possible to understand how it calculated the applicant’s dumping and injury margins, in breach of Article 20 of the basic Regulation and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 142, p. 1).
Case F-79/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014  — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: family benefit, indemnification, reassignment








C_2014388EN.01003102.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/31





Action brought on 7 August 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-79/14)
2014/C 388/40
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Lamamra and K. Evora, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to withdraw the benefit of the household allowance, with retroactive effect, after the applicant’s transfer to another institution and to limit the amount of the installation allowance to one month instead of two.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 5 December 2013;










—


Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 8 May 2014, rejecting his claim;










—


Order the Parliament to pay the costs.
Case C-379/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 7 August 2014  — TOP Logistics BV and Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Co. Ltd and Bacardi International Ltd
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, customs transit, customs warehouse, import (EU), registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014388EN.01000201.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 7 August 2014 — TOP Logistics BV and Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Co. Ltd and Bacardi International Ltd
(Case C-379/14)
2014/C 388/02
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV

Respondents: Bacardi & Co. Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd

Questions referred

These questions concern goods originating outside the EEA which, after having been brought into the territory of the EEA (neither by the trade mark proprietor nor with its consent), are placed, in a Member State of the European Union, under the external transit procedure or under the customs warehousing procedure (within the meaning of the Community Customs Code: Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) (old) and Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (2)).






1.


Where, in circumstances such as those in the case at issue, such goods are subsequently placed under a duty suspension arrangement, must those goods then be regarded as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC (3) (now Directive 2008/95/EC) (4), with the result that there is ‘[use] (of the sign) in the course of trade’ that can be prohibited by the trade mark proprietor pursuant to Article 5(1) of that directive?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must it then be accepted that, in circumstances such as those in the case at issue, the mere presence in a Member State of such goods (which have been placed under a duty suspension arrangement in that Member State) does not prejudice, or cannot prejudice, the functions of the trade mark, with the result that the trade mark proprietor which invokes national trade mark rights in that Member State cannot oppose that presence?






(1)  Council Regulation of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (OJ 2008 L 145, p. 1).

(3)  First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

(4)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
The implementation of simplified cost options with the European Social Fund in Italy : a case study on the 2007-2013 experience.
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: European Social Fund, Italy, case study, structural expenditure

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SIMPLIFIED COST OPTIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND IN ITALY A CASE STUDY ON THE 2007–2013 EXPERIENCESCOs were introduced in the 2007–2013 programming period for ESF in order to reduce the administrative burden on Managing Authorities when implementing ESF co-funded projects and on beneficiaries. SCOs enable also to shift the focus from input to output and results. This thematic paper shares the Italian experience with this tool in the hope that good practices can be taken up by other EU countries when managing ESF projects. This publication is available in English.To find more about the ESF please visit http://ec.europa.eu/esfYou can download our publications or subscribe for free athttp://ec.europa.eu/social/publicationsIf you would like to receive regular updates about the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion sign up to receive the free Social Europe e-newsletter at http://ec.europa.eu/social/e-newsletterhttp://ec.europa.eu/social/https://www.facebook.com/socialeuropehttps://twitter.com/EU_SocialKE-04-14-633-EN-CEUEMP12A-1348 - European Social Fund in Italy - EN V07.indd   430/07/14   11:38Social EuropeThe implementation of simplifi edcost options with theEuropean Social Fund in ItalyA case study on the 2007-2013 experienceEUEMP12A-1348 - European Social Fund in Italy - EN V07.indd   130/07/14   11:38HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONSFree publications:• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);• more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).Priced publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).Priced subscriptions:• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union  (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).EUEMP12A-1348 - European Social Fund in Italy - EN V07.indd   330/07/14   11:38EUEMP12A-1348 - European Social Fund in Italy - EN V07.indd   230/07/14   11:38
Case F-76/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014  — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, building safety, competition (EU)








C_2014388EN.01003002.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/30





Action brought on 7 August 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-76/14)
2014/C 388/38
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Suárez de Castro and M. Orman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/248/13.

Form of order sought







—


Since there is a place on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/248/13 to constitute a reserve from which to recruit administrators in Field 1 (‘Security of Buildings’) and since the applicant was awarded a mark of 53,38, which is higher than the minimum mark set by EPSO of 51,01, include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition;










—


Alternatively, in the light of the many irregularities in the marking of test (d), annul the marking of test (d) and re-rank the candidates in the competition on the basis of the other marks awarded, which were not vitiated by irregularities;










—


If the application is upheld, order the applicant to pay the costs.
Case F-78/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014  — ZZ and Others v EEAS
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European External Action Service, European civil service, promotion








C_2014388EN.01003101.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/31





Action brought on 7 August 2014 — ZZ and Others v EEAS
(Case F-78/14)
2014/C 388/39
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: Dario de Abreu Caldas, Micael de Abreu Caldas and Jean-Noël Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants to the next grade in the 2013 promotion procedure of the European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decisions of 9 and 14 October 2013 establishing the list of officials promoted under the 2013 promotion procedure,










—


order the EEAS to pay the costs.
Communication on the publication of the volume of olive oil production as referred to in Article 169(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural production, dissemination of information, olive oil, production quota, regulation of agricultural production








C_2014256EN.01000401.xml










7.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/4





Communication on the publication of the volume of olive oil production as referred to in Article 169(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

2014/C 256/03






Volume of olive oil production (1 000 t) (2)






CY



5,4





EL



308,7





ES



1 274,5





FR



5,5





HR



4,7





IT



428,5





MT



0,03





PT



61,5





SI



0,6





EU-28




2 129,5







(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  excludes pomace olive oil
Case C-376/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 7 August 2014 — C v M
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Ireland, custody, judicial proceedings, residence








C_2014351EN.01000701.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 7 August 2014 — C v M
(Case C-376/14)
2014/C 351/09
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: C

Defendant: M

Questions referred







1.


Does the existence of the French proceedings relating to the custody of the child preclude, in the circumstances of this case, the establishment of habitual residence of the child in Ireland?










2.


Does either the father or the French courts continue to maintain custody rights in relation to the child so as to render wrongful the retention of the child in Ireland?










3.


Are the Irish courts entitled to consider the question of habitual residence of the child in the circumstances where she has resided in Ireland since July, 2012 at which time her removal to Ireland was not in breach of French law?
Communication on the publication of the quantity of beef and veal production as referred to in Article 170(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural production, cattle, dissemination of information, meat product, production quota, regulation of agricultural production








C_2014256EN.01000301.xml










7.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/3





Communication on the publication of the quantity of beef and veal production as referred to in Article 170(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

2014/C 256/02







Quantity of beef and veal production
(1 000 t) in carcass weight equivalent




 


Aged less than 12 months


Aged from 12 months and older





BE



53,29


206,51





BG



0,69


4,28





CZ



0,82


69,88





DK



28,27


99,17





DE



52,69


1 104,41





EE



0,19


7,84





IE



0,88


525,32





EL



8,79


47,72





ES



224,14


373,38





FR



220,47


1 267,87





HR



6,46


43,30





IT



130,84


884,25





CY



1,00


3,82





LV



1,12


15,95





LT



0,48


40,73





LU



0,20


8,72





HU



0,66


25,32





MT



0,00


1,27





NL



219,33


162,71





AT



7,42


215,51





PL



9,57


367,68





PT



22,52


71,71





RO



5,90


22,24





SI



2,24


32,39





SK



0,11


11,45





FI



0,37


80,86





SE



14,53


129,55





UK



3,19


883,18





EU-28




1 008,51




6 738,20







(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014256EN.01000501.xml










7.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 August 2014
2014/C 256/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3345




JPY


Japanese yen


136,58




DKK


Danish krone


7,4557




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79285




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2454




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2152




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4105




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,834




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,06




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2045




RON


Romanian leu


4,4420




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8874




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4329




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4643




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3414




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5795




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6681




KRW


South Korean won


1 381,98




ZAR


South African rand


14,3597




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2245




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6463




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 749,29




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2704




PHP


Philippine peso


58,662




RUB


Russian rouble


48,3508




THB


Thai baht


43,060




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0584




MXN


Mexican peso


17,7502




INR


Indian rupee


82,0450






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-77/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker








C_2014395EN.01006802.xml










10.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/68






Action brought on 7 August 2014 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-77/14)
(2014/C 395/84)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Declaration of the inapplicability of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Article 1(67)(d) of Regulation No 1023/2013, in that it establishes a link between the grant of the benefits provided for in that article and expatriate status, and the annulment of the General Implementing Provisions relating to the travel expenses between the place of employment and the place of origin adopted by the Council on 1 January 2014 applying the same link.

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by virtue of Article 277 TFEU, Article 1(67)(d) of Regulation No 1023/2013 must be disapplied in that it links the reimbursement of annual travel expenses provided for in Article 7 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to expatriate status;










—


Annul Article 1 of the GIPs of 1 January 2014 in that it links the reimbursement of annual travel expenses provided for in Article 7 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to expatriate status;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs.
Case T-590/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)
Date: 2014-08-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sport, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01002301.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/23





Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)
(Case T-590/14)
2014/C 351/29
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Balme, Solicitors)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1425/2013-2.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b),(c) and 7(2) CTMR.