do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/76 of 19 January 2015 launching the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) and amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU financing, EU police mission, Mali, Sahel




L_2015013EN.01000501.xml










20.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 13/5








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/76
of 19 January 2015
         
launching the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) and amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/219/CFSP.












(2)


On 14 October 2014, the Council approved the Concept of Operations for EUCAP Sahel Mali.












(3)


Following the recommendation of the Civilian Operation Commander and the achievement of Initial Operational Capability by EUCAP Sahel Mali, the Mission should be launched on 15 January 2015 and it should remain valid for a period of 24 months.












(4)


Decision 2014/219/CFSP foresaw the financial reference amount of EUR 5 500 000 for the first nine months following its entry into force. A new reference amount for the period of twelve months starting on 15 January 2015 should be provided. To this effect, Decision 2014/219/CFSP should be amended.












(5)


EUCAP Sahel Mali will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) shall be launched on 15 January 2015.


Article 2
The Civilian Operation Commander of EUCAP Sahel Mali is hereby authorised with immediate effect to start execution of the mission.


Article 3
Article 14(1) of Decision 2014/219/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 April 2014 to 14 January 2015 shall be EUR 5 500 000. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 January 2015 to 14 January 2016 shall be EUR 11 400 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.’
.

Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 15 January 2015.




Done at Brussels, 19 January 2015.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21.
Case C-21/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-399/11 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, export (EU), export of capital, goods and services, interpretation of the law, terms for aid








C_2015081EN.01001101.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/11





Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-399/11 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
(Case C-21/15 P)
(2015/C 081/14)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Banco Santander, S.A. and Santusa Holding, S.L.

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and










—


reserve the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU and, in particular, the concept of selectivity of State aid contained in that article.
That single ground of appeal consists of two parts, which derive from the aforementioned error of law:






—


in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and










—


in the second place, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the concept of selectivity by making an artificial distinction between aid to the export of goods and aid to the export of capital.
Case T-24/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, rights of the defence, subsidiary








C_2015089EN.01003501.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/35





Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council
(Case T-24/15)
(2015/C 089/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as these acts include the applicant in the category 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 five pleas in law: violation of the right of hearing, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of fundamental right to property.
The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, including the right to effective judicial protection. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd as designated by the Council, as this company no longer exists in Jersey and does not exist in Iran; and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested acts. Finally, by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.


(1)  OJ L 325, p. 19.

(2)  OJ L 325, p. 3.
Case C-18/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2015  — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral S.A., KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Portugal, deduction at source, financial institution, tax relief








C_2015118EN.01001601.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2015 — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral S.A., KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-18/15)
(2015/C 118/22)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral S.A., KBC Finance Ireland

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 56 TFEU preclude national tax legislation under which financial institutions not resident in Portuguese territory are subject to tax on interest income received in that territory, withheld at source at the definitive rate of 20 % (or at a lower rate if there is an agreement to avoid double taxation), a tax applied to gross income with no possibility of deducting business expenses directly related to the financial activity carried out, whereas the interest received by resident financial institutions is incorporated in the total taxable income, with deduction of any expenses related to the activity pursued when determining the profit for the purposes of corporation tax, so that the basic rate of 25 % is applied to the net interest income?










2.


Does the same hold good even if the tax base of resident financial institutions, after deduction of the financing costs related to the interest income, or of expenses directly related, economically, to such income, is or may be subject to a higher tax than is deducted at source from the gross income of non-resident institutions?










3.


For this purpose, can the financing costs associated with the loans granted, or the expenses directly related, economically, to the interest income received, be proved by the data provided by the EURIBOR (‘Euro Interbank Offered Rate’) and by the LIBOR (‘London Interbank Offered Rate’) — which represent the average interest rates charged on interbank financing used by banks to carry out their activity?
Case C-20/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, export (EU), export of capital, goods and services, interpretation of the law, terms for aid








C_2015081EN.01001001.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/10





Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission
(Case C-20/15 P)
(2015/C 081/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Autogrill España, S.A.

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and










—


reserve the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU and, in particular, the concept of selectivity of State aid contained in that article.
That single ground of appeal consists of two parts, which derive from the aforementioned error of law:






—


in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and










—


in the second place, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the concept of selectivity by making an artificial distinction between aid to the export of goods and aid to the export of capital.
Case C-19/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2015 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v Innova Vital GmbH
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, advertising, consumer information, foodstuff, human nutrition, trade information








C_2015127EN.01000902.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2015 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v Innova Vital GmbH
(Case C-19/15)
(2015/C 127/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

Defendant: Innova Vital GmbH

Question referred

Must Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that regulation apply also to nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications in advertisements for foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer if the commercial communication or advertisement is addressed exclusively to the professional sector?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods; OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.
Case F-5/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015  — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: legality, regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights








C_2015096EN.01002602.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/26





Action brought on 19 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-5/15)
(2015/C 096/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The declaration of the illegality of Article 9 of the general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the annulment of the decision relating to transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, a decision which applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought







—


Declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is illegal;










—


Annul the decision of 16 January 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, under the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015016EN.01000101.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/1






Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 016/01)

Last publication


OJ C 7, 12.1.2015


Past publications


OJ C 462, 22.12.2014


OJ C 448, 15.12.2014


OJ C 439, 8.12.2014


OJ C 431, 1.12.2014


OJ C 421, 24.11.2014


OJ C 409, 17.11.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-21/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — Franmax v OHIM — Ehrmann (Dino)
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2015107EN.01003201.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/32






Action brought on 19 January 2015 — Franmax v OHIM — Ehrmann (Dino)
(Case T-21/15)
(2015/C 107/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu (Oberschönegg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dino’ — Application for registration No 10 809 481

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 2012/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-17/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by Mr Eugen Popp and Mr Stefan M. Zech against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 in Case T-463/12 Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, lawyer, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015406EN.01001301.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/13






Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by Mr Eugen Popp and Mr Stefan M. Zech against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 in Case T-463/12 Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-17/15 P)
(2015/C 406/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech (represented by: A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal in a judgment of 26 October 2015 and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/77 of 19 January 2015 appointing the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date: 2015-01-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, appointment of members, diplomatic representation




L_2015013EN.01000701.xml










20.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 13/7








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/77
of 19 January 2015
         
appointing the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/426/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Peter SØRENSEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EUSR's mandate is to expire on 30 June 2015.












(2)


Following the appointment of Mr Peter SØRENSEN to another function, Mr Lars-Gunnar WIGEMARK should be appointed as the EUSR in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1 March 2015.












(3)


The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

1.   The mandate of Mr Peter SØRENSEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina is hereby terminated on 31 October 2014.


2.   Mr Lars-Gunnar WIGEMARK is hereby appointed as the EUSR in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1 March 2015 until 30 June 2015. He shall exercise his mandate in accordance with Decision 2011/426/CFSP.


3.   The Council may decide that the mandate of the EUSR be terminated earlier, based on an assessment by the Political and Security Committee and a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.



Article 2
Expenditure related to maintaining administrative continuity in the period between the EUSR's mandates from 1 November 2014 to 28 February 2015 shall be covered by the financial reference amount laid down in Article 5(1) of Decision 2011/426/CFSP.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
Article 2 shall apply as of 1 November 2014.




Done at Brussels, 19 January 2015.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2011/426/CFSP of 18 July 2011 appointing the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ L 188, 19.7.2011, p. 30).