do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-39/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Limburg, camping








C_2015155EN.01000701.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV
(Case C-39/15)
(2015/C 155/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wuppertal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hartmut Frenzel

Defendant: Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 26 February 2015.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2015034EN.01000101.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/1





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

(2015/C 034/01)

Last publication


OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

Past publications


OJ C 16, 19.1.2015


OJ C 7, 12.1.2015


OJ C 462, 22.12.2014


OJ C 448, 15.12.2014


OJ C 439, 8.12.2014


OJ C 431, 1.12.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case F-18/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, legality, promotion, regulations for civil servants, working conditions








C_2015096EN.01002801.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/28





Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
(Case F-18/15)
(2015/C 096/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to change the description of the type of post held by the applicants in the Sysper 2 application and/or not to include them in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the promotion round for 2014.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim, primarily, that the Tribunal should:






—


declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful;










—


annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;










—


annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.




In the alternative, the applicants claim that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;










—


annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-54/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v OHIM (Liiga)
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports body, trade-mark law








C_2015107EN.01003401.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/34






Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v OHIM (Liiga)
(Case T-54/15)
(2015/C 107/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant(s): Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Liiga’ — Application for registration No 12 056 792

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2014 in Case R 576/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the trade mark to proceed to publication;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-45/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015  — Hydrex v Commission
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, cost analysis, economic support, legality








C_2015096EN.01002301.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/23





Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Hydrex v Commission
(Case T-45/15)
(2015/C 096/29)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare unlawful and therefore annul European Commission decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, notified to the applicant under Article 297 TFEU by letter of 13 January 2015, concerning recovery order No. 3241405101 for the amount of EUR 5 40  721,10, on the ground that there was a manifest failure to state reasons and, consequently, a manifest error of assessment;










—


order the European Commission to return all the amounts wrongly claimed and/or retained;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2006, the grant contract LIFE06 ENV/B/000362, entitled ‘Demonstration of a 100 % non-toxic durable hull protection and anti-fouling system contributing to zero emission to the aquatic environment and saving 3-8 % heavy fuels’, was signed by the European Commission and the applicant. The recovery by the Commission at issue is based on an ex-post audit which allegedly showed that the eligible costs of the project had to be reduced.
In support of its action, the applicant submits that the obligation to state reasons has been infringed. It submits that the Commission took no account of an audit that was carried out when all the documents were still available. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission took no account of its observation on the ex-post audit report, which justified an additional amount.
Case T-56/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015  — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v OHIM (Brauwelt)
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, beer, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01003401.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/34





Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v OHIM (Brauwelt)
(Case T-56/15)
(2015/C 118/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Brauwelt’– Application No 1 2 0 38  551

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1121/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-17/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, report, staff assessment








C_2015127EN.01004002.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/40





Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-17/15)
(2015/C 127/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Fouquet, avocat)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision not to amend the applicant’s 2013 appraisal report.

Form of order sought







—


order the annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 31.10.2014 (HR.D.2/AS/ac/Ares82014) in response to the complaint filed by ZZ (No. R/781/14);










—


order the defendant to take a new decision on the case, respecting the Court’s findings, and notably deleting the contested sentence from the claimant’s report;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.
Case C-40/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, VAT, insurance company, interpretation of the law, personal insurance, service, tax exemption








C_2015155EN.01000702.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw
(Case C-40/15)
(2015/C 155/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Minister Finansów

Respondent: BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that services such as those in the present case, which are supplied on behalf of an insurance undertaking by a third party — in the name and on behalf of the insurer — which has no legal relationship with the insured person, are covered by the exemption referred to in that provision?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-47/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Germany v Commission
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, renewable energy








C_2015127EN.01003101.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/31





Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-47/15)
(2015/C 127/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, K. Petersen and T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the facts
The European Commission misunderstood the underlying facts, namely the functioning of the Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, in particular the financial flows system under that law. In addition, the Commission misunderstood the role ‘of the State’ as legislator and as body with responsibility for supervisory authorities and incorrectly deduced a situation of control therefrom.










2.


Second plea in law: No ‘favouring’ through the special compensation scheme
The European Commission erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU by accepting, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, that energy-intensive users had been favoured.










3.


Third plea in law: No granting of the alleged favouring by the State or through State resources
The European Commission also erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU in this respect when it accepted that public authorities had control over the assets of the various private companies participating in the regime of the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources.
Case C-41/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 2 February 2015 — Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited v Minister for Finance
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Ireland, interpretation of the law, legal status, public limited company, share capital, shareholder








C_2015138EN.01003102.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/31





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 2 February 2015 — Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited v Minister for Finance
(Case C-41/15)
(2015/C 138/43)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited

Defendant: Minister for Finance

Questions referred







1.


Does the Second Company Law Directive (1) preclude in all circumstances, including the circumstances of this case, the making of a Direction Order pursuant to section 9 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act, 2010, on foot of the opinion of the Minister that it is necessary, where such an order has the effect of increasing a company's capital without the consent of the general meeting; allotting new shares without offering them on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders, without the consent of the general meeting; lowering the nominal value of the company's shares without the consent of the general meeting and, to that end, altering the company's memorandum and articles of association without the consent of the general meeting?










2.


Was the Direction Order made by the High Court pursuant to section 9 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 in relation to Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc and Irish Life and Permanent plc in breach of European Union Law?






(1)  Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent

OJ L 26, p. 1
Case C-38/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2015-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Andalusia, Catalonia, Galicia, Spain, action programme, pollution control measures, wastewater, water pollution, water treatment








C_2015127EN.01001002.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/10





Action brought on 2 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-38/15)
(2015/C 127/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations:






—


under Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, in relation to the agglomeration of Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu (Galicia); and










—


under Article 5(2) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment in relation to the agglomerations of Bollulos Par del Condado; Abrera; Berga; Capellades; Figueres; El Terri (Banyoles) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu.














—


Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an investigation carried out in the context of infringement procedure 2002/2123, the European Commission, by a letter of formal notice of 19 December 2003, drew the Kingdom of Spain’s attention to its duty to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5 6 and 14 of Directive 91/271, in particular as regards the treatment of urban waste water in ‘sensitive areas’.
The subject-matter of the proceedings has been reduced as Spain has brought the sanitation, treatment and waste facilities of certain agglomerations into compliance. Nevertheless, at the time of bringing the application the infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive continues in respect of the situation of the agglomerations of Bollulos Par del Condado (in the Autonomous Community of Andalucia); Abrera, Berga, Capellades, Figueres and El Terri-Banyoles (in the Autonomous Community of Cataluña) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu (in the Autonomous Community of Galicia).


(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.