do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-45/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — Hydrex v Commission (Application for interim measures — Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Application to suspend adoption — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, cost analysis, economic support, environmental policy, legality








C_2015205EN.01003402.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/34





Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — Hydrex v Commission
(Case T-45/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment - Recovery order - Application to suspend adoption - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 205/46)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and G. Wils, acting as agents)

Re

Application to suspend the enforcement of Commission decision C (2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, relating to recovery order No 3241405101issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 5 40  721,10.

Operative part of the order







1)


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2)


The costs are reserved.
Case T-213/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015205EN.01003901.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/39





Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)
(Case T-213/15)
(2015/C 205/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: toom Baumarkt GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Super-Samstag’ — Community trade mark No 10 304 178

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 in Case R 657/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(i) and (iv) of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objectionsText with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, Hungary, State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, herd conversion, livestock farming








C_2015136EN.01000601.xml










24.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/6





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
(2015/C 136/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


22.01.2015




Aid number


SA.38716 (2014/N)




Member State


Hungary




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Állatjóléti körülmények javítása — tenyészkoca




Legal basis


A tenyészkoca állatjóléti támogatások feltételeiről szóló VM rendelet-tervezet




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Animal welfare commitments




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: HUF 51  720 (in millions)
Annual budget: HUF 8  620 (in millions)




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


01.02.2015 — 31.01.2021




Economic sectors


Raising of swine/pigs




Name and address of the granting authority







Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium




Kossuth Lajos tér 11. H-1055 Budapest








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Case T-43/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — CRM v Commission (Application for interim measures — Registration of a protected geographical indication — ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bread, designation of origin, product designation, right to justice








C_2015205EN.01003401.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/34





Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — CRM v Commission
(Case T-43/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Registration of a protected geographical indication - ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
(2015/C 205/45)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)) (OJ 2014 L 316, p. 3).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.7598 — Dr. Oetker/Coppenrath & Wiese) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: confectionery product, economic concentration, food industry, merger control








C_2015133EN.01000101.xml










24.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/1





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.7598 — Dr. Oetker/Coppenrath & Wiese)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 133/01)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 20 March 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between Dr. August Oetker KG (Dr. Oetker, Germany) and Conditorei Coppenrath & Wiese GmbH & Co KG (Coppenrath & Wiese, Germany). On 15 April 2015, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.
Case C-189/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, electrical energy, energy consumption, environmental tax, industrial manufacturing, large business, tax relief








C_2015228EN.01000501.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others
(Case C-189/15)
(2015/C 228/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia

Defendants: Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas

Questions referred







1)


Do Italian rules (such as those at issue in the main proceedings) which, first, include a definition of ‘energy-intensive businesses’ in line with the Directive and, secondly, grant companies of this type payment incentives covering general electricity charges (and not incentives relating to taxation of energy products and electricity as such) fall within the scope of Directive 2003/96/EC (1)?




If so:






2)


Does EU law, and in particular Articles 11 and 17 of Directive 2003/96/EC, preclude a regulatory and administrative system (such as that in force in Italian law and described in the present order) which, first, opts to introduce a system of concessions on the consumption of energy products (electricity) by ‘energy-intensive businesses’ within the meaning of the above-mentioned Article 17 and, secondly, restricts the possibility of benefitting from those concessions to ‘energy-intensive’ businesses operating in the manufacturing sector only, thereby excluding businesses operating in other production sectors?






(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015133EN.01000201.xml










24.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 April 2015
(2015/C 133/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0772




JPY


Japanese yen


129,36




DKK


Danish krone


7,4601




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71700




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3790




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0383




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,5160




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,399




HUF


Hungarian forint


301,57




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0185




RON


Romanian leu


4,4235




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9398




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3937




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3170




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3484




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4259




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4513




KRW


South Korean won


1 167,64




ZAR


South African rand


13,2001




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,6764




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5883




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 947,48




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9067




PHP


Philippine peso


47,608




RUB


Russian rouble


55,2952




THB


Thai baht


34,963




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2328




MXN


Mexican peso


16,6110




INR


Indian rupee


68,2110






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-186/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, tax collection, tax relief








C_2015254EN.01000501.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück
(Case C-186/15)
(2015/C 254/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück

Defendant: Finanzamt Wiedenbrück

Questions referred







1.


Are the Member States obliged to apply the rounding-up rule in Article 175(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (1) in cases where the deductible proportion is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods set out in headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Article 173(2) of that directive?










2.


Are the Member States obliged to apply the rounding-up rule in Article 175(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax in the case of an input tax adjustment made in accordance with Article 184 et seq. of that directive in cases where the deductible proportion within the meaning of Article 175(1) of that directive is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods set out in headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Article 173(2) of that directive or in accordance with headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment?










3.


Are the Member States obliged to adjust deductions in accordance with Article 184 et seq. of Directive 2006/112/EC by applying the rounding-up rule — second question — in such a way as to round the input VAT amount subject to adjustment up or down to a whole percentage number in favour of the taxable person?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-192/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 24 April 2015 — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems; other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data protection, disclosure of information, personal data, protection of privacy, third country








C_2015236EN.01002601.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 24 April 2015 — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems; other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens
(Case C-192/15)
(2015/C 236/35)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: T.D. Rease, P. Wullems

Other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens

Questions referred







1.


Does an instruction to employ equipment for the processing of personal data within the territory of a Member State, issued outside the EU by a controller, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), to a detective agency established within the EU, come within the notion of ‘making use of equipment’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of that directive?










2.


Does Directive 95/46/EC, in particular Article 28(3) and (4) thereof, given the objective of that directive, allow the national authorities the latitude, when enforcing the protection of individuals by the supervisory authorities provided for in that directive, to set priorities which result in such enforcement not taking place in the case where only an individual or a small group of persons submits a complaint alleging a breach of that directive?
Case F-66/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Denmark, European official, damages, pension scheme








C_2015213EN.01005001.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/50





Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v European Economic and Social Committee
(Case F-66/15)
(2015/C 213/80)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the decisions reducing the correction coefficient applicable to the pension of the applicants, who live in Denmark, as shown on their pension statements for the month of June 2014, and for compensation in respect of the non-material loss alleged to have been suffered as a result of the varying and contradictory information given to justify the contested decisions.

Form of order sought

The applicants submit that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the decisions contained in the pension statements for June 2014 in accordance with which the weighting applicable to the applicants’ pension is reduced with effect from 1 January 2014;










—


Order the EECS to pay the costs and to pay a sum to be assessed on equitable principles in compensation for the non-material loss caused.
Case C-190/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016048EN.01000701.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/7





Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM
(Case C-190/15 P)
(2016/C 048/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Fetim BV (represented by: L. Bakers, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
By order of 19 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-216/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa/Commission
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, health insurance, insurance company








C_2015262EN.01003101.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/31





Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa/Commission
(Case T-216/15)
(2015/C 262/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa, s.a. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a. s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a. s. (VZP) (notified under document C(2014) 7277) (OJ 2015 L 41, p. 25);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.





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 a misapplication of Article 107 (1) TFEU






—


The Commission has erred in law by misapplying the concept of undertaking in the specific context of Article 107 (1) TFEU.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment






—


The Commission has, in setting and applying the criteria to determine the economic nature of the insurance scheme, committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in finding that SZP/VZP does not qualify as an undertaking and failed to provide adequate reasoning.
Case C-188/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU employment policy, European social policy, computer systems, consultancy, equal treatment, religious discrimination








C_2015221EN.01000202.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA
(Case C-188/15)
(2015/C 221/03)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

Defendant: Micropole Univers SA

Question referred

‘Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 78/2000/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that the wish of a customer of an information technology consulting company no longer to have the information technology services of that company provided by an employee, a design engineer, wearing an Islamic headscarf, is a genuine and determining occupational requirement, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out?’


(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case F-67/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: dismissal, motherhood, work contract








C_2015213EN.01005002.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/50





Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
(Case F-67/15)
(2015/C 213/81)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its termination date, when that occurred at the end of the applicant’s pregnancy.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the decision taken by the AECC of the Commission not to extend the contract, which expired on 31 August 2014;










—


Order to the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
Case T-205/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)
Date: 2015-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, designs and models, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2015205EN.01003601.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/36





Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)
(Case T-205/15)
(2015/C 205/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Aguirre and Company, SA. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark representing a sports shoe —Community trade mark No 1050520-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 696/2013-3

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


alter the contested decision so as to find that the ground of invalidity laid down in Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002 found by the Board of Appeal is not met in this case;










—


or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;










—


and, in any event, order OHIM to pay the costs and the costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that the contested decision contained inconsistent statements with the result that it is insufficiently reasoned.










—


infringement of Article 25(1)(e) Regulation No 6/2002.










—


infringement of Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002.