do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-172/15: Action brought on 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, maritime safety, plan, ports policy








C_2015198EN.01002601.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/26





Action brought on 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-172/15)
(2015/C 198/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and J. Rius, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Forms of order sought







—


To declare, pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that having not yet approved all of the assessments and port security plans for all Spanish ports included in the scope of European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(3) and Articles 6 and 7 of that directive, that provide respectively, that Member States are to define the boundaries of each port, and are to approve relevant port security assessments and plans;










—


Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

On 5 September 2014, the Kingdom of Spain acknowledged that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, 3 port security assessments and 18 port security plans were still awaiting approval.
From that date until the present, the Spanish authorities have continued to send updates regularly on the progress of the practical implementation of Directive 2005/65/EC. The latest of such reports, received on 14 April 2015, shows that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, one assessment and eight port security plans are still awaiting approval.
Consequently, the Commission notes that on the date of the latest report received, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations to define the relevant boundaries of each port affected by Directive 2005/65/EC, or its obligations to establish and approve a security assessment for all the ports to which Directive 2005/65/EC applies, and establish and approve port security plans for these ports.


(1)  OJ L 310, p. 28.
Case C-557/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle, acting as liquidator of ECZ Autohandel GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 13 — Insolvency proceedings — Payment made after the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened on the basis of attachment carried out before that date — Action to set aside an act detrimental to the interests of the creditors — Limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set transactions aside — Procedural requirements for the action — Applicable law)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings, liquidation, payment








C_2015198EN.01000702.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle, acting as liquidator of ECZ Autohandel GmbH
(Case C-557/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 13 - Insolvency proceedings - Payment made after the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened on the basis of attachment carried out before that date - Action to set aside an act detrimental to the interests of the creditors - Limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set transactions aside - Procedural requirements for the action - Applicable law))
(2015/C 198/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hermann Lutz

Defendant: Elke Bäuerle, acting as liquidator of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of those proceedings.










2)


Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defence which it establishes also applies to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator.










3)


The relevant procedural requirements for the exercise of an action to set a transaction aside are to be determined, for the purposes of the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator.






(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
Joined Cases C-317/13 and C-679/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures — Determination of legal basis — Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — Secondary legal basis — Consultation of Parliament)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU control, drug addiction, drug surveillance, health risk, judicial cooperation, police cooperation, psychotropic substance








C_2015198EN.01000301.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Joined Cases C-317/13 and C-679/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Determination of legal basis - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Consultation of Parliament))
(2015/C 198/03)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures and Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures;










2.


Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/129 and Implementing Decision 2013/496 are to be maintained until the entry into force of new acts intended to replace them;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;










4.


Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
Case C-329/14: Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air conditioning, building, energy consumption, energy saving, environmental standard, heating, national implementing measure, thermal insulation








C_2015320EN.01002503.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/25





Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
(Case C-329/14) (1)

(2015/C 320/36)
Language of the case: Finnish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7422 — Riverstone/Barclays/Origo)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, energy industry, merger control








C_2015122EN.01000201.xml










16.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7422 — Riverstone/Barclays/Origo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 122/03)
On 9 April 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7422. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.