do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-20/15: Action brought on 3 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, pay rise, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015127EN.01004101.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/41





Action brought on 3 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-20/15)
(2015/C 127/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AD 13 in the context of the 2014 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought







—


Declare the illegality of the Commission Decision of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions giving effect to Article 45 and the subsequent Communication to the Commission of 18 December 2013 amending the rules on the composition of the cabinets of the Members of the Commission and spokespersons;










—


Annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicant on the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise provided for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, to the extent that that decision does not consider the applicant as having special responsibilities resulting in his categorisation in a role of ‘Head of Unit or equivalent’ or ‘Advisor or equivalent’ by treatment in the same way as the categorisation made for officials being seconded to the cabinets in accordance with the Commission Communication of 18 December 2013;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 3 February 2015 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Latvijas Banka (ECB/2015/3)
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European Central Bank, audit, auditing, central bank, financial control








C_2015051EN.01000401.xml










13.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/4





RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 3 February 2015
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Latvijas Banka
(ECB/2015/3)
(2015/C 51/02)
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro, are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of Latvijas Banka’s current external auditors will end following the audit for the financial year 2014. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2015.










(3)


Latvijas Banka has selected KPMG Baltics SIA as its external auditors for the financial years 2015 to 2019,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that KPMG Baltics SIA should be appointed as the external auditors of Latvijas Banka for the financial years 2015 to 2019.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 3 February 2015.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
Case T-55/15: Action brought on 3 February 2015 — Certified Angus Beef v OHIM — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF)
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beef, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015107EN.01003402.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/34






Action brought on 3 February 2015 — Certified Angus Beef v OHIM — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF)
(Case T-55/15)
(2015/C 107/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Certified Angus Beef, LLC (Wooster, Ohio, United States of America) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certified Australian Angus Beef Pty Ltd (Surrey Hills, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 095 394

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 662/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the Opposition in its entirety;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7487 — Onex Corporation/SIG Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distribution business, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2015035EN.01001001.xml










3.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7487 — Onex Corporation/SIG Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 35/04)






1.


On 23 January 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the Onex Corporation (‘Onex’ of Canada) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the SIG Combibloc Group AG (Switzerland) and SIG Holding USA, LLC (USA) (together ‘SIG Group’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Onex is a Canadian-based investment company with interests in a number of companies in various industry sectors, including but not limited to companies active in the supply of products for aseptic carton packaging machines and aseptic cartons,










—


SIG Group is a provider of aseptic carton packaging machines and aseptic cartons.














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 this 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.7487 — Onex Corporation/SIG Group, 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 C-172/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 February 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Article 31 of the EEA Agreement — Corporation tax — Groups of companies — Group relief — Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary — Conditions — Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive)
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, corporation tax, financial loss, group of companies, infringement of EU law, subsidiary








C_2015107EN.01000201.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/2






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 February 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-172/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Corporation tax - Groups of companies - Group relief - Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary - Conditions - Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive))
(2015/C 107/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, S. Brighouse and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Ewart QC and S. Ford, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3)


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case T-51/15: Action brought on 3 February 2015 — PAN Europe v Commission
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative transparency, environmental monitoring, provision of documents








C_2015118EN.01003301.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/33





Action brought on 3 February 2015 — PAN Europe v Commission
(Case T-51/15)
(2015/C 118/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 24 November 2014 with reference Ares(2014)3900631 (‘the contested decision’), in which the Commission confirmed for the most part its decision of 3 June 2014 with reference Ares(2014)2150615 in which the Commission took a decision on the request for information of PAN Europe of 3 January 2014 (registered by the Commission on 6 January 2014);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision, the Commission acted in breach of and wrongly did not or only partially apply Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, because:






—


the Commission acted in breach of Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 by overlooking the fact that the requested information qualifies as environmental information;










—


the Commission acted in breach of the Articles 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not interpreting the ground of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in conformity with Article 4(3) second paragraph of the Aarhus Convention or/and in a sufficient restrictive way, by not weighing the specific interest of protection of the decision-making process invoked by the Commission against the general interests of the disclosure of environmental information and by not stating sufficient reasons for the refusal;










—


the Commission acted in breach of the Articles 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 by not examining specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access and by not justifying for each specific document for which reason it should not be disclosed.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission by adopting the Contested Decision acted in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, especially of Article 4 of that Regulation and/or more specifically of Article 4(3) thereof because it failed to demonstrate that the invoked ground of refusal applies, it wrongly did not weigh the interests served with disclosure and wrongly and in breach of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 did not examine specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access to documents.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015035EN.01000101.xml










3.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 February 2015
(2015/C 35/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1310




JPY


Japanese yen


133,06




DKK


Danish krone


7,4440




GBP


Pound sterling


0,75260




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3672




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0519




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7225




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,749




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,56




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1771




RON


Romanian leu


4,4043




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7356




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4523




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4332




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7702




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5562




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5300




KRW


South Korean won


1 246,12




ZAR


South African rand


13,0934




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0771




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,7030




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 370,84




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0989




PHP


Philippine peso


49,909




RUB


Russian rouble


78,0600




THB


Thai baht


36,848




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0296




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8802




INR


Indian rupee


69,9735






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-68/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Competition — Concept of ‘State aid’ — National legislation — Use of buildings for institutional purposes — Rent reduction — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Need for a reply to the questions referred — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility
Date: 2015-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, building, control of State aid, property leasing, public administration, restriction on competition








C_2015146EN.01001001.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/10





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc
(Case C-68/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU - Competition - Concept of ‘State aid’ - National legislation - Use of buildings for institutional purposes - Rent reduction - Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Need for a reply to the questions referred - Lack of information - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2015/C 146/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Aosta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Equitalia Nord SpA

Defendant: CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy), by decision of 12 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.