do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-307/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interest, interpretation of the law, loan, retroactivity of a law, unfair terms of contract








C_2015279EN.01002401.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-307/15)
(2015/C 279/29)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ana María Palacios Martínez

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, for the restitutory effects derived from a declaration on grounds of unfairness of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ included in a loan agreement not to be applied retroactively from the date of conclusion of the agreement but rather from a later date?










2.


Is the criterion that those concerned must act in good faith, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?










3.


If so, what circumstances must be taken into account in order for it to be determined whether those concerned acted in good faith?










4.


At all events, is it compatible with the criterion of good faith for the actions of a seller or supplier, in creating the agreement, to have been the cause of a lack of transparency making the term unfair?










5.


Is the risk of serious difficulties, which operates as a basis for limitation of the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?










6.


If so, what criteria ought to be taken into account?










7.


Must the risk of serious difficulties be assessed by taking account solely of the risk which may arise for the seller or supplier or must account also be taken of the loss caused to a consumer by the failure to reimburse in full the sums paid under that ‘floor clause’?






(1)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015209EN.01000401.xml










25.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 June 2015
(2015/C 209/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1213




JPY


Japanese yen


138,93




DKK


Danish krone


7,4619




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71180




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2118




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0449




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7690




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,206




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,11




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1671




RON


Romanian leu


4,4675




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9962




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4473




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3793




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6927




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6297




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5061




KRW


South Korean won


1 244,32




ZAR


South African rand


13,5958




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,9619




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5880




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 917,43




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2182




PHP


Philippine peso


50,514




RUB


Russian rouble


60,9332




THB


Thai baht


37,875




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4442




MXN


Mexican peso


17,2490




INR


Indian rupee


71,3016






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-95/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of power — Right to property — Equal treatment)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, abuse of power, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, ownership, right to justice








C_2015262EN.01002302.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/23





Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council
(Case T-95/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of power - Right to property - Equal treatment))
(2015/C 262/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case C-311/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2015 — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, consumer credit, consumer protection, contract terms, credit institution, provision of services








C_2015294EN.01003801.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/38






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2015 — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi
(Case C-311/15)
(2015/C 294/48)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TrustBuddy AB

Defendant: Lauri Pihjalaniemi

Question referred

Is Article 3(b) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that that a trader is to be regarded as a creditor if it markets credit to consumers via the internet in the form of so-called peer-to-peer lending and exercises, as regards the consumers, the decision-making power generally appertaining to creditors with respect to the terms and conditions, the granting of credit and debt recovery, even though the funds for credits come from anonymous private individuals and are kept separate from the trader’s own funds?


(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
Case F-55/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — EE v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual staff — Non-renewal of fixed-term contract — Claims for annulment — Renewal procedure — Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard — Disregard — Claims for compensation — Non-material harm)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: contract staff, damages, full-time employment, public service








C_2015254EN.01002401.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/24





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — EE v Commission
(Case F-55/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Contractual staff - Non-renewal of fixed-term contract - Claims for annulment - Renewal procedure - Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Disregard - Claims for compensation - Non-material harm))
(2015/C 254/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EE (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract, which should have been of indefinite duration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission not to renew the contract of EE as a member of the contractual staff, communicated orally on 14 October 2013, confirmed by the note of 31 October 2013 and explained in the note of 13 December 2013;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay EE the sum of EUR 10  000;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EE.






(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 59.
Case T-26/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — PT Musim Mas v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Adjustment — Article 2(9) and (10)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis — Single economic entity — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Equality and non-discrimination)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, chemical alcohol, dumping, equal treatment, import (EU), third country








C_2015262EN.01001601.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/16





Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — PT Musim Mas v Council
(Case T-26/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Adjustment - Article 2(9) and (10)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - Single economic entity - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Equality and non-discrimination))
(2015/C 262/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by D. Geradin, lawyer, and lastly by E. McGovern, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); and Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg) (represented initially by V. Akritidis, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor, and subsequently by V. Akritidis)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2012 of 11 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 1138/2011 (OJ 2012 L 352, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;










4.


Orders Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
Case T-336/15: Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, copyright, music, record, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015294EN.01007701.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/77






Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)
(Case T-336/15)
(2015/C 294/92)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Windrush Aka LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and S. Britton, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerry Dammers (London, United Kingdom)

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: Community word mark ‘The Specials’ — Community trade mark No 3 725 082

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 1412/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision;










—


Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.