do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AD/277/14 — Administrators (AD 5) in the field of audit
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, accountant, administrator, competition (EU)








CA2015179EN.01000101.xml










2.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 179/1





RESERVE LIST (1)

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/277/14
ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5) IN THE FIELD OF AUDIT
(2015/C 179 A/01)
 






BOULANGER


Joël




BRAZ


Paulo




BUGARELLA


Davide




CIABATTI


Ingrid




COBO BENITO


Silvia




COLAVITA


Antonella




DOMINGUEZ MARTINEZ


Maria Jesús




DONGIOVANNI


Leonardo




FALCINELLI


Alessandra




FARA


Guido




GERLI


Letizia




GIRETTI


Mario




HANSSENS


Kristof




HIRVONEN


Tuija




IACONISI


Mirko




JÄÄSKELÄINEN


Tuomo Markus




KILJUNEN


Aino




KONSTANTOPOULOS


Michail




LINTU


Dan Andrei




MANOILOV


Gueorgui




MARCOS FIGUERUELO


Ángela




MARTIN PÉREZ


Fernando




MIÑANO SICILIA


Alejandro




MOLDOVAN


Felix Hadrian




MORENO RODRIGUEZ


Antonio




MÜLLER-HELLMANN


Julia




NEGREAN


Mirela Loredana




POSTI


Cesare




RIVOIRA


Marzia




ROCES FERNÁNDEZ


Pelayo




SANDU


Raluca Elena




SANTINELLI


Valentina




STASIA


Antonella




SUCILA


Cristina




VARANDA RIBEIRO


Ricardo Antonio




VERBAL


Dana Gabriela




ZAGORDO


Michele




ZOIA BOLZONELLO


Francesco




The reserve list will be valid until 18 April 2016.


(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.
Case F-84/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, promotion








C_2015279EN.01006002.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/60






Action brought on 2 June 2015 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-84/15)
(2015/C 279/77)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade (AD 12) in the Council of the European Union’s 2014 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2014 promotion procedure;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Case T-327/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, abuse of power, legal basis, operational programme, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2015279EN.01004201.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/42






Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
(Case T-327/15)
(2015/C 279/52)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, Ο. Tsirkinodou and Α. Ε. Vasilopoulou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 25 March 2015 on applying financial correction on the EAGGF Guidance Section of the Operational Programme CCI No 2000GR061PO021 (GREECE — Objective 1 — Rural Reconstruction), to the amount of EUR 7 2 1 05  592,41, which was notified under number C(2015) 1936 final.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


In the first plea for annulment, it is claimed that the contested decision lacks a legal basis, because Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) 1260/1999 (1), on which it is based, has been repealed, in so far as concerns the EAGGF Guidance Section (the first part of the first plea in law), and, in any event, the legal requirements for reliance on Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) No 1260/1999 are not met in advance (the second part of the first plea in law).










2.


In the second plea for annulment, it is claimed, in the alternative to the first plea in law, that the adoption of the contested decision exceeded the competence ratione temporis of the Commission (the first part of the second plea in law), or that its adoption was out of time and in breach of essential procedural requirements and is an infringement of the right of the Hellenic Republic to be heard and of its rights of defence (the second part of the second plea in law).










3.


In the third plea, it is claimed that the contested decision is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the Member State.










4.


Last, in the fourth plea for annulment it is claimed that the contested decision has infringed the principle of ne bis in idem because a multiple correction has been imposed, and in any event it is claimed that the financial correction imposed is entirely disproportionate and should be annulled.






(1)  Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015179EN.01000201.xml










2.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

1 June 2015
(2015/C 179/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0944




JPY


Japanese yen


135,79




DKK


Danish krone


7,4588




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71925




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3734




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0331




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7065




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,440




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,11




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1335




RON


Romanian leu


4,4425




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9297




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4341




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3673




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4871




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5372




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4795




KRW


South Korean won


1 217,13




ZAR


South African rand


13,4116




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,7807




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5740




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 444,10




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0368




PHP


Philippine peso


48,697




RUB


Russian rouble


58,2567




THB


Thai baht


36,881




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5066




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8773




INR


Indian rupee


69,7123






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Notification from the Republic of Bulgaria pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: Bulgaria
Subjects: Bulgaria, extraction of oil, hydrocarbon, mineral prospecting, petroleum exploration, public contract








C_2015179EN.01000701.xml










2.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/7





Notification from the Republic of Bulgaria pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
(2015/C 179/04)
Bulgaria notifies the information below pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1).
In accordance with the Underground Natural Resources Act (promulgated in State Gazette No 23 of 12 March 1999, […], amended in SG No 14 of 20 February 2015), the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations to prospect and/or explore for oil and gas and the granting of concessions to extract oil and gas on the proposal of the Minister for Energy. The Council of Ministers accordingly empowers the Minister of Energy to conclude a contract for prospecting and/or exploring for oil and gas or to conclude a contract for extracting oil and gas.


(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7420 — ZF/TRW) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2015179EN.01000101.xml










2.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7420 — ZF/TRW)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 179/01)
On 12 March 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 32015M7420. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-241/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 June 2015 — Buga v Parliament and Others (Application — Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, criminal proceedings, money laundering, terrorism








C_2015245EN.01002801.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/28





Order of the President of the General Court of 2 June 2015 — Buga v Parliament and Others
(Case T-241/15 R)
((Application - Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 245/34)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Aurel Buga (Bacău, Romania) (represented by: M.Vasii, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union and European Commission

Re:

Application for interim measures seeking to order the Romanian authorities to suspend the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant before a national court.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7628 — Permira/CPPIB/Informatica) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, United States, economic concentration, investment, investment company, merger control, software








C_2015179EN.01000901.xml










2.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7628 — Permira/CPPIB/Informatica)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 179/06)






1.


On 21 May 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 undertakings Permira Holdings Limited (Guernsey) (‘Permira’) and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (Canada) (‘CPPIB’) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Informatica Corporation (USA) (‘Informatica’) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Permira: Permira is a private equity firm that makes long term private equity investments in companies active across several business sectors that have potential for growth and investment,
—   for CPPIB: CPPIB invests in public and private equities, bonds, private debt, real estate, infrastructure, agriculture and other areas,
—   for Informatica: Informatica is active in the provision of enterprise data integration software and services used by businesses to access, integrate and manage their data. The main software products offered by Informatica relate to data integration, data quality, master data management and data security.










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 M.7628 — Permira/CPPIB/Informatica, 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-265/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, anti-dumping legislation, customs union, discretionary power, import (EU), import licence, law of states








C_2015294EN.01002401.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/24






Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission
(Case C-265/15 P)
(2015/C 294/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Vestel Iberia, SL (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court:






—


To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-249/12;










—


To rule that the appeal is admissible;










—


To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;










—


To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is brought by Vestel Iberia S.L. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in Case T-249/12, Vestel Iberia S.L. v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.
The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.
More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:






—


The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.










—


Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.










—


The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.
Case T-289/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: economic sanctions, fight against crime, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, terrorism








C_2015245EN.01004301.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/43





Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council
(Case T-289/15)
(2015/C 245/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position No 2001/93 (1) in so far as the national decisions relied on by the Council do not satisfy the conditions laid down by that article for a decision to be considered as taken by a competent authority.










2.


Second plea in law: incorrect statement of the facts, since the main facts cited by the Council are not substantiated by any evidence.










3.


Third plea in law: mistaken characterisation of Hamas as a terrorist group.










4.


Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-interference which prevents Hamas, a lawful political movement that won the Palestinian elections and forms the core of the Palestinian government, from being characterised as a terrorist group.










5.


Fifth plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons by the Council.










6.


Sixth plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s right of defence and its right to effective judicial protection in the course of the national proceedings.










7.


Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to property in so far as the freezing of the applicant’s funds unjustifiably infringes its right to property.






(1)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).
Case C-264/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission
Date: 2015-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, customs union, discretionary power, import (EU)








C_2015294EN.01002302.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/23






Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission
(Case C-264/15 P)
(2015/C 294/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court:






—


To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-269/12;










—


To rule that the appeal is admissible;










—


To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;










—


To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is brought by Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in case T-269/12, Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. v. Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.
The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.
More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:






—


The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.










—


Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.










—


The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.