do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-278/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, judicial review, promotion, proof, rights of the defence, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015294EN.01007201.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/72






Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14
(Case T-278/15 P)
(2015/C 294/87)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: KL (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14;










—


uphold the claims it submitted at first instance;










—


order the defendant to the appeal to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law, some of which concern the staff appraisal system and others of which concern the promotion system.






—


The appraisal system






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof, breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and breach of the appellant’s rights of the defence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the limits of judicial review. The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal has exceeded the limits of its power of judicial review several times, and appears to be seeking to oblige it to adopt a particular system of staff appraisal.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the Tribunal erred in law in finding that an appraisal system not based on marks lacks objectivity, and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.














—


The promotion system






4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and of the appellant’s rights of the defence.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the appellant had infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
Case C-262/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, combat vehicle, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading, vehicle parts








C_2015294EN.01002201.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH
(Case C-262/15)
(2015/C 294/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

Respondent authority: Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

Questions referred







1.


Does the exception specified in point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 of the Combined Nomenclature (Part II of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013) (2), which is worded ‘armoured fighting vehicles (heading 8710)’, apply also to ‘parts thereof’?










2.


Must note 3 to Section XVII of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a ‘weapons station (armoured turret)’ which may be used on armoured fighting vehicles or on ‘mobile maritime transport systems’ or in stationary installations must be classified under heading 8710 as a part of an armoured fighting vehicle because that weapons station was imported by the manufacturer of armoured fighting vehicles for the production or assembly of armoured fighting vehicles and is used in fact for that purpose?






(1)  
            OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2013 L 290, p. 1.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015178EN.01000101.xml










1.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/1





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

(2015/C 178/01)

Last publication


OJ C 171, 26.5.2015


Past publications


OJ C 155, 11.5.2015


OJ C 146, 4.5.2015


OJ C 138, 27.4.2015


OJ C 127, 20.4.2015


OJ C 118, 13.4.2015


OJ C 107, 30.3.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-304/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Abdulkarim v Council
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, right to work, rights of the defence








C_2015245EN.01004601.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/46





Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Abdulkarim v Council
(Case T-304/15)
(2015/C 245/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those invoked in the context of Case T-303/15 Barqawi v Council.
Case C-257/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air safety, air traffic, air traffic control, carrier, consumer protection








C_2015279EN.01001901.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-257/15)
(2015/C 279/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that extraordinary circumstances which arise during a preceding flight continue to constitute extraordinary circumstances in relation to the flight at issue in the case where the airline operator has the possibility to avoid delay in the remaining flights of the flight sequence by not carrying out certain flights within that flight sequence?










2.


If the Court’s answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the extraordinary circumstances have arisen on the same day, the previous day or, more generally, only within the scheduled flight sequence?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Decision of the European Systemic Risk Board of 1 June 2015 on the appointment of the Data Protection Officer of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB/2015/1)
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: European Systemic Risk Board
Subjects: European Central Bank, European official, appointment of members, data protection, personal data








C_2015204EN.01001801.xml










20.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/18





DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD
of 1 June 2015
on the appointment of the Data Protection Officer of the European Systemic Risk Board
(ESRB/2015/1)
(2015/C 204/06)
THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (1),
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2), and in particular Article 24 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 of 17 November 2010 conferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (3), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Having regard to Decision ESRB/2012/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 13 July 2012 implementing rules on data protection at the European Systemic Risk Board (4), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Ms. Barbara Eggl is appointed as Data Protection Officer (DPO) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) with effect from 1 June 2015 until 31 May 2017. Ms. Eggl is appointed as the ESRB’s DPO in her capacity as member of staff and DPO of the European Central Bank.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 1 June 2015.


The Chair of the ESRB

Mario DRAGHI




(1)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 162.

(4)  OJ C 286, 22.9.2012, p. 16.
Case T-287/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2015279EN.01003901.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/39






Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)
(Case T-287/15)
(2015/C 279/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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: Figurative mark in red and blue containing the word element ‘real’ — Community trade mark No 38 968

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2015 in Case R 2285/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in part;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 15, 51, 64, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-256/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Drago Nemec v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, commercial transaction, deadline for payment, interest, invoicing, natural person, right of establishment, trade licence








C_2015302EN.01001401.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Drago Nemec v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-256/15)
(2015/C 302/18)
Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Drago Nemec

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred









1.


Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a system in which, for the purposes of engaging in an economic activity, a natural person is granted authorisation stating the activity for which authorisation is granted, there is no undertaking, nor, therefore, any commercial transaction within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision of the Directive, when the legal transaction giving rise to late payment relates to an activity not covered by the authorisation?
If the reply to the above question is in the negative:










2.


Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person is deemed to be an undertaking and the legal transaction giving rise to late payment constitutes a commercial transaction within the meaning of that provision, when the legal transaction does not fall within the activity registered by the said natural person but stems from an activity which, by its nature, may be an economic activity, and an invoice has been issued for that transaction?










3.


Does the rule that interest on late payment ceases to run when the amount of accrued and unpaid interest equals the principal amount owed (the rule ne ultra alterum tantum) run counter to the provisions of Directive 2000/35?






(1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).
Case T-284/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — AlzChem/Commission
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, chemical industry, control of State aid, law of states








C_2015302EN.01005501.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/55





Action brought on 1 June 2015 — AlzChem/Commission
(Case T-284/15)
(2015/C 302/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well founded;










—


annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 15 October 2014 under Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





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 the Commission erred in finding that the continued operation of NCHZ under the decision of the creditors’ committee did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU






—


The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that no advantage was conferred onto Novácke chemické závody, a.s. v konkurze (NCHZ) while its operations were maintained after the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors to continue the operations of NCHZ is not imputable to the State.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU, with regard to the imputability to the State of the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors






—


The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the approval of the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors by the Trenčín Court. The Commission also failed to provide reasons in relation to the veto rights of the secured creditors regarding the continuation of NCHZ’s operations under Slovak bankruptcy law.
Case T-303/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Barqawi v Council
Date: 2015-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, right to work, rights of the defence








C_2015245EN.01004501.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/45





Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Barqawi v Council
(Case T-303/15)
(2015/C 245/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ahmad Barqawi (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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








1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial, since the applicant was never heard before the sanctions at issue were imposed.












2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appraisal of the facts, in so far as the Council failed to adduce evidence of the facts indicated which underpin the reasoning of the measures taken.












3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.












4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation.












5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power. The applicant claims that, in so far as the measures adopted by the Council have no effect on the Syrian regime and in so far as applicant always complied with the sanctions imposed by the international community and always remained independent of the incumbent regime, there is reason to believe that the contested measures were adopted for reasons other than those indicated in those measures (market exclusion — favouring other players).












6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since the Council’s reasons in support of the contested measures are elliptical and make no reference to specific facts or dates allowing the applicant to identify the commercial operations which he is alleged to have carried out.