do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-516/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — France v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guidance’ Section — Reduction of financial aid — Community initiative programme Leader+ — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement)
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, EU programme, development aid, economic conversion, regional aid








C_2015279EN.01002801.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/28






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — France v Commission
(Case T-516/10) (1)

((EAGGF - ‘Guidance’ Section - Reduction of financial aid - Community initiative programme Leader+ - Failure to comply with the time-limit for adoption of a decision - Infringement of an essential procedural requirement))
(2015/C 279/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: E Belliard, B. Cabouat, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, and subsequently by: D. Colas, C. Candat and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 Final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 Final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+);










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the French Republic.






(1)  
            OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Case T-363/15: Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Työhönvalmennus Valma/OHIM (box shape)
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2015337EN.01001601.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/16





Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Työhönvalmennus Valma/OHIM (box shape)
(Case T-363/15)
(2015/C 337/18)
Language of the case: Finnish

Parties


Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: (Representation of a tridimensional mark (Shape of box) — Application for registration No 12137337

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 in Case R 1690/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it upholds the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for is devoid of distinctive character with respect to the goods concerned;










—


grant registration of the mark or alternatively refer the trade mark application back to OHIM for further consideration;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009/Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) applied in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b).
Case F-100/15: Action brought on 6 July 2015 — 6 July 2015 v EIB
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: assistant, indemnification, interest, pay scale, promotion, right to justice, staff assessment








C_2015414EN.01004101.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/41





Action brought on 6 July 2015 — 6 July 2015 v EIB
(Case F-100/15)
(2015/C 414/51)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment, firstly, of the applicant’s staff report for 2013 and, secondly, the consecutive and connected decisions of the EIB such as the decision not to promote him to grade D and compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision dated 8 December 2014 of the Appeals Committee and return the file to that committee after laying down the criteria with which it must comply in adopting the new decision;










—


Annul the guidelines defined by the Human Resources Directorate in the note ‘Guidelines to the 2013 annual staff appraisal exercise’, in so far as they provide that the final evaluation must be expressed by means of a written summary, without ever having defined the corresponding statements;




In the alternative:






—


Annul the entire 2013 staff report (in the appraisal section, in so far it does not give the applicant the mark ‘exceptional performance’ or ‘very good performance’ and does not propose his promotion to grade D, and finally in so far as it does not provide for the development of his career and fails to set his objectives for 2014);










—


Annul all the connected, consecutive and prior acts, including the promotions made public by the note ‘Performance Evaluation exercise 2013 — List of promotions and awards’ distributed on 31 March 2014;










—


Find that the applicant has been the subject of harassment;










—


Find that the European Union is liable for inciting harassment and infringement of the rules concerning a ‘fair trial’;










—


Order the defendants jointly and severally to pay fair compensation for the physical, non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm set out in paragraphs 112 to 120 below;










—


Order the defendants jointly and severally to pay compensatory and late-payment interest and compensation for the effect of inflation on the sums awarded;










—


Order both defendants to pay the costs, without prejudice.
Case C-333/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, arable land, grassland, livestock farming








C_2015302EN.01002101.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón
(Case C-333/15)
(2015/C 302/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: María Pilar Planes Bresco

Respondent: Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 43 and 44 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from treatment as eligible hectares all areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer in excess of those taken into account at the relevant time for the purpose of determining the normal entitlements due to that farmer, making the inclusion of those areas, and therefore the replacement of arable land with pasture, conditional on the pasture being genuinely given over to the rearing of livestock in the specific financial year in respect of which the farmer seeks to activate the payment entitlements?
And, should that question be answered in the negative,










2.


Must Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, in excluding payments under support schemes for beneficiaries of such schemes ‘for whom it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of that support scheme’, be interpreted as not permitting States to adopt general measures which reduce the number of ‘eligible hectares’ (of permanent pasture) in which the beneficiary will be presumed to have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining payment by laying down general situations in which the beneficiary will be presumed to have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining payment, without establishing, specifically and in relation to a particular farmer, the activity carried on by that farmer and his conduct?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1.
Case T-44/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Aid for the production of skimmed-milk powder — Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrative authorities or bodies of the Member States — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of ne bis in idem — Reasonable period)
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGGF Guarantee Section, aid to agriculture, financial aid, skimmed milk powder








C_2015279EN.01002802.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/28






Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission
(Case T-44/11) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Aid for the production of skimmed-milk powder - Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrative authorities or bodies of the Member States - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of ne bis in idem - Reasonable period))
(2015/C 279/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by L. Ventrella and G. Fiengo, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 288, p. 24), to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015221EN.01000101.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/1





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

(2015/C 221/01)

Last publication


OJ C 213, 29.6.2015


Past publications


OJ C 205, 22.6.2015


OJ C 198, 15.6.2015


OJ C 190, 8.6.2015


OJ C 178, 1.6.2015


OJ C 171, 26.5.2015


OJ C 155, 11.5.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-334/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, arable land, grassland, livestock farming








C_2015302EN.01002102.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón
(Case C-334/15)
(2015/C 302/27)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: María Pilar Planes Bresco

Respondent: Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 43 and 44 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from treatment as eligible hectares all areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer in excess of those which were taken into account at the relevant time for the purpose of determining the normal entitlements due to that farmer, making the inclusion of those areas, and therefore the replacement of arable land with pasture, conditional on the pasture being genuinely given over to the rearing of livestock in the specific financial year in respect of which the farmer seeks to activate the payment entitlements?
And, should that question be answered in the negative,










2.


Must Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, in so far as it excludes payments under support schemes for beneficiaries of such schemes ‘where it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of that support scheme’, be interpreted as not permitting States to adopt general measures which reduce the number of ‘eligible hectares’ (of permanent pasture) by laying down general situations in which the beneficiary will be presumed to have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining payment without establishing, specifically and in relation to a particular farmer, the activity carried on by that farmer and his conduct?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001

OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1.
Case C-344/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Appeal Commissioners (Ireland) made on 6 July 2015 — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, competition policy, public authorities, restriction on competition, tax exemption, toll








C_2015311EN.01003201.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Appeal Commissioners (Ireland) made on 6 July 2015 — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners
(Case C-344/15)
(2015/C 311/37)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Appeal Commissioners

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: National Roads Authority

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Questions referred







1.


If a body governed by public law carries on an activity such as providing access to a road on payment of a toll and if in the Member State there are private bodies who collect tolls on different toll roads pursuant to an agreement with the public body concerned under national statutory provisions, is the second indent of Article 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the public body concerned must be deemed to be in competition with the private operators concerned such that to treat the public body as a non-taxable person is deemed to lead to a significant distortion of competition notwithstanding the facts that (a) there is not and cannot be any actual competition between the public body and the private operators concerned and (b) there is no evidence that there is any realistic possibility that any private operator could enter the market to build and operate a toll road which would compete with the toll road operated by the public body?










2.


If there is no presumption, what exercise should be conducted to determine whether there is a significant distortion of competition within the meaning of the second indent of Article 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ L 347, p. 1.
Case C-332/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax harmonisation, tax relief, tax return








C_2015320EN.01001601.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone
(Case C-332/15)
(2015/C 320/23)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Defendant

Giuseppe Astone

Questions referred







(1)


Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006 (1), as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above and in force in Italy (Article 19 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of exercising the right to deduct where there has been a failure to file VAT returns, in particular, the return for the second year after the year in which the right to deduct arose?










(2)


Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006, as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above in force in Italy (Articles 25 and 39 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of taking account, for the purposes of the deduction of VAT, of purchase invoices which the taxable person has completely failed to register?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case F-99/15: Action brought on 6 July 2015 — ZZ and Others v EIB
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, bonus payment, indemnification, interest, monthly pay, wage determination








C_2015414EN.01004001.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/40





Action brought on 6 July 2015 — ZZ and Others v EIB
(Case F-99/15)
(2015/C 414/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the salary statements of April 2015 and the bonus statements of April 2015 which, in the view of the applicants, implement decisions which fail to have regard to their rights to a salary progression and claim for damages in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of the decisions to apply to the applicants the decision of the Board of Directors of the defendant of 16 December 2014 setting a salary progression limited to 2,7 % and the decision of the Management Committee of the defendant of 4 February 2015, entailing a salary loss, those decisions being in the salary statements of April 2015 and the annulment, to the same extent, of all the decisions in the subsequent salary statements;










—


Annulment of the notices concerning the performance rewards for 2015;










—


Accordingly, order the defendant






—


to pay the difference in remuneration resulting from the decisions cited above of the Board of Directors of the defendant of 16 December 2014 and of the Management Committee of the defendant of 4 February 2015 as compared to the application of the minimum merit grid; to that difference in remuneration must be added late-payment interest with effect from 12 April 2015 and, subsequently, on the 12th day of each month until payment in full, that interest being set at the rate of the ECB increased by three points;










—


to pay the difference in remuneration resulting from the application of the rate of 16,3 % on a salary budget defined in accordance with the defendant’s undertakings;










—


to pay damages in respect of the harm suffered as a result of the loss of purchasing power, that loss being evaluated ex aequo et bono and provisionally at 1,5 % of the monthly remuneration;










—


to pay to each applicant EUR 1  000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;














—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Case C-336/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB
Date: 2015-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, dismissal, labour law, transfer of businesses, working time








C_2015311EN.01002901.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB
(Case C-336/15)
(2015/C 311/34)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Unionen

Defendants: Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB

Question referred

Is it compatible with the Transfer of Undertakings Directive (1), after a year has elapsed following the transfer of an undertaking, on application of a provision in the transferee’s collective agreement which means that, where a certain contiguous length of service with a single employer is a condition for an extended notice period to be granted, not to take account of the length of service with the transferor, when the employees, under an identical provision in the collective agreement which applied to the transferor, had the right to have that length of service taken into account?


(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).