do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice for the attention of one person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2015090EN.01000101.xml










17.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/1





Notice for the attention of one person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus
(2015/C 90/01)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Zhadobin, Iury Viktaravich, person appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the abovementioned person with a new statement of reasons. This persons is hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for his designation, before 31 March 2015, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu






(1)  OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.
Case F-73/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — AX v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Dismissal — Rights of the defence — Access to the disciplinary file — Access to information and documents on other divisions — Reasonable time — Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee — Advisory role of the Disciplinary Committee — Stricter disciplinary measure than that recommended — Obligation to state reasons — Management of a division — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality of the disciplinary measure — Extenuating circumstances — Aggravating circumstances — Objection of illegality)
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, access to information, damages, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, rights of the defence








C_2015146EN.01004301.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/43





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — AX v ECB
(Case F-73/13) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Dismissal - Rights of the defence - Access to the disciplinary file - Access to information and documents on other divisions - Reasonable time - Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee - Advisory role of the Disciplinary Committee - Stricter disciplinary measure than that recommended - Obligation to state reasons - Management of a division - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality of the disciplinary measure - Extenuating circumstances - Aggravating circumstances - Objection of illegality))
(2015/C 146/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AX (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: M. López Torres and E. Carlini, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to dismiss the applicant following disciplinary proceedings instigated for serious misconduct and for compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Declares that AX is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 33.
Case T-466/12: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission (Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia — Refusal of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid — Calculation of the export price — Single economic entity — Calculation of the dumping margin — Application of a methodology different from that used in the original investigation — Change in circumstances — Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Canada, Russia, anti-dumping duty, dumping, import (EU), iron ore








C_2015146EN.01003601.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/36





Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission
(Case T-466/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia - Refusal of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid - Calculation of the export price - Single economic entity - Calculation of the dumping margin - Application of a methodology different from that used in the original investigation - Change in circumstances - Article 2(9) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
(2015/C 146/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decisions C(2012) 5577 final, C(2012) 5585 final, C(2012) 5588 final, C(2012) 5595 final, C(2012) 5596 final, C(2012) 5598 final and C(2012) 5611 final of 10 August 2012 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia, in so far as those decisions refuse reimbursement of the amounts of anti-dumping duties applied for, save for those amounts the applications for which have been found inadmissible because submitted after the statutory time-limits had expired.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.
Council Decision (EU) 2015/484 of 17 March 2015 appointing a Belgian member of the European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belgium, European Economic and Social Committee, appointment of members








L_2015077EN.01001101.xml










21.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 77/11








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/484
of 17 March 2015
         
appointing a Belgian member of the European Economic and Social Committee


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Belgian Government,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).












(2)


A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Tony VANDEPUTTE,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Rudi THOMAES, Administrateur délégué honoraire de la Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique (FEB), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 17 March 2015.


For the Council


The President

E. RINKĒVIČS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
Resolution on the centennial of the Armenian genocide
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: Euronest Parliamentary Assembly
Subjects: Armenia, Armenian question, Türkiye, commemoration, crime against humanity








C_2015315EN.01002301.xml










23.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/23





RESOLUTION (1)

on the centennial of the Armenian genocide
(2015/C 315/05)
THE EURONEST PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY,






—


having regard to Article 9(3) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948,










—


having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966,










—


having regard to the UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of 26 November 1968,










—


having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 20 July 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question,










—


having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 15 November 2000 on the 1999 Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s progress towards accession,










—


having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 28 September 2005 on the opening of negotiations with Turkey,










—


having regard to the resolutions and statements of the legislative bodies of a number of EU Member States,










A.


whereas 2015 marks the centennial of the Armenian genocide perpetrated under the Ottoman Empire,










B.


whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world,










C.


whereas the denial of genocide is widely recognised as the final stage of genocide, enshrining impunity for its perpetrators and demonstrably paving the way for future genocides; whereas the absence of unequivocal and timely condemnation of the Armenian genocide contributed to a large extent to the failure to prevent future crimes against humanity,










D.


whereas the early prevention of such crimes can undoubtedly stop the escalation of conflicts, tragedies and humanitarian catastrophes,












1.


Condemns all forms of crime against humanity and genocide, and deeply deplores attempts to deny them;












2.


Pays tribute to the memory of the innocent victims of all genocides and crimes committed against humanity;












3.


Stresses that the prevention of genocides and crimes against humanity should be a priority forthe international community; believes that further development of international capacity in this area is essential;












4.


Supports the international struggle to preventgenocides, to restore the rights of people subjected to genocide and to establish historical justice;












5.


Invites Turkey to come to terms with its past;












6.


Considers that preparing the ground for future reconciliation between peoples is of the utmost importance.






(1)  Adopted on 17 March 2015 in Yerevan, Armenia.
Case C-533/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2008/104/EC — Temporary agency work — Article 4(1) — Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work — Justification — Grounds of general interest — Obligation to review — Scope)
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, law of states, social policy, temporary employment, temporary employment agency








C_2015155EN.01000501.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/5





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy
(Case C-533/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 4(1) - Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work - Justification - Grounds of general interest - Obligation to review - Scope))
(2015/C 155/05)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

Defendants: Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of the Member States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified, and, therefore,










—


the provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1).






(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
Case T-89/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission (State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen — Action for annulment — Letter sent to the complainants — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees — Undertaking in difficulty — Sale of public land — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, Hesse, State aid, control of State aid, financial solvency, plot, rights of the defence, sale, sawmill








C_2015146EN.01003301.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/33





Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission
(Case T-89/09) (1)

((State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen - Action for annulment - Letter sent to the complainants - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees - Undertaking in difficulty - Sale of public land - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 146/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (Creuzburg, Germany) (represented by: initially J. Heithecker and F. von Alemann, then J. Heithecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Land Hessen (Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész and P. Melcher, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2008) 6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, and, second, of the decision allegedly contained in letter D/55056 of the Commission of 15 December 2008 concerning the State aid procedure CP 195/2007 — Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH in so far as it concluded that the State guarantees granted by the Land Hessen do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG to bear four-fifths of its own costs, four-fifths of the costs of the European Commission and four-fifths of the costs of the Land Hessen;










4.


Orders the Commission to bear one-fifth of its own costs and one-fifth of the costs of Pollmeier Massivholz;










5.


Orders the Land Hessen to bear one-fifth of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
Case T-234/14: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Mammoet Salvage BV v Commission (‘Action for declaration that an institution has failed to act and for damages — Contractual liability — Non-contractual liability — Plea of inadmissibility — Eighth European Development Fund — Works to remove 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou — Contract concluded between the applicant and Mauritania and taken up by the Commission for funding by the European Union — Execution of a contract — Report on the end date for payments from the European Union under the contract — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’)
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, European Development Fund, Mauritania, contract, gulf, invoicing, liability, payment








C_2015171EN.01002402.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/24





Order of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Mammoet Salvage BV v Commission
(Case T-234/14) (1)

((‘Action for declaration that an institution has failed to act and for damages - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Plea of inadmissibility - Eighth European Development Fund - Works to remove 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou - Contract concluded between the applicant and Mauritania and taken up by the Commission for funding by the European Union - Execution of a contract - Report on the end date for payments from the European Union under the contract - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’))
(2015/C 171/29)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Mammoet Salvage BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P.Kuypers and A.Schadd, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.Van Nuffel and S.Bartlet, agents)

Re:

An action under article 265 of TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully refrained from acceding to the applicant’s request to extend the period for payments from the European Union pursuant to the contract for the work of removing 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou (Mauritania) between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and the applicant and accepted for financing by the Commission under the Eighth European Development Fund and, in the alternative, an action ordering the Commission to pay the invoices issued by the applicant under the above-mentioned contract on the basis of the contractual liability of the European Union and, in the further alternative, an action seeking recognition of the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Mammoet Salvage is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, innovation, invitation to tender, nanotechnology, public-private partnership, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2015090EN.01002301.xml










17.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/23





Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking
(2015/C 90/04)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking.
Proposals are invited for the following call: H2020-ECSEL-2015-1-RIA-two-stage.
Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following websites:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal (funding opportunities — calls)
http://ecsel.eu/web/calls/CALLS_2015.php
Case T-611/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa — Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015146EN.01003402.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/34





Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)
(Case T-611/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa - Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 146/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: South Pacific Management (Papeete, Tahiti, France) (represented by: S. de La Marnierre and E. Landon, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and South Pacific Management.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1);










2.


Orders OHIM and South Pacific Management to each bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.






(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.