do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-189/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Infringement committed by subsidiaries — Fines — Joint and several liability of the subsidiaries and the parent company — Exceeding the 10 % ceiling for one of the subsidiaries — Decision readopted — Reduction of the fine for that subsidiary — Attribution to the other subsidiary and the parent company of the obligation to pay the reduced fine — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Right of access to the file)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, chemical industry, competition policy, fine, infringement of EU law, liability, restriction on competition, right to justice, rights of the defence, subsidiary








C_2015302EN.01003101.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/31





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission
(Case T-189/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Infringement committed by subsidiaries - Fines - Joint and several liability of the subsidiaries and the parent company - Exceeding the 10 % ceiling for one of the subsidiaries - Decision readopted - Reduction of the fine for that subsidiary - Attribution to the other subsidiary and the parent company of the obligation to pay the reduced fine - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Right of access to the file))
(2015/C 302/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Kallmayer, I. du Mont and G. Schiffers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 727 of 8 February 2010, amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 727 of 8 February 2010, amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), in so far as it concerns GEA Group AG;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015231EN.01000401.xml










15.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

14 July 2015
(2015/C 231/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1031




JPY


Japanese yen


136,02




DKK


Danish krone


7,4625




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70840




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4080




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0422




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9925




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,080




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,90




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1500




RON


Romanian leu


4,4235




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9086




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4828




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4076




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5500




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6468




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5002




KRW


South Korean won


1 259,33




ZAR


South African rand


13,6795




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8478




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5767




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 706,09




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1912




PHP


Philippine peso


49,886




RUB


Russian rouble


62,5347




THB


Thai baht


37,536




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4515




MXN


Mexican peso


17,3076




INR


Indian rupee


69,8704






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-387/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J AND JOY)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015381EN.01004501.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/45





Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J AND JOY)
(Case T-387/15)
(2015/C 381/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘J AND JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 409 935

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1352/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Office:






—


to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;










—


to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-457/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Rouffaud v EEAS (Appeal — Civil Service — Auxiliary member of contract staff — Reclassification of contract — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2015302EN.01005201.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/52





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Rouffaud v EEAS
(Case T-457/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Auxiliary member of contract staff - Reclassification of contract - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials))
(2015/C 302/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Thierry Rouffaud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J. N. Louis, then J. N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 in Rouffaud v EEAS (F-59/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:49), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 in Rouffaud v EEAS (F-59/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:49);










2.


Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Case C-123/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of tax neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ — Conditions for establishing a supply of goods — No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, proof, supply, tax evasion, tax relief








C_2015320EN.01000601.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/6





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
(Case C-123/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of tax neutrality - Deduction of input VAT - Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ - Conditions for establishing a supply of goods - No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods))
(2015/C 320/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Itales’ OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

Operative part of the order

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, concerning the right to deduct value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of a Member State from considering that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the consequence that the purchaser is prevented from deducting the value added tax incurred at the time of the purchase, on the ground that the purchaser has not proved either the origin of the goods concerned or that his supplier was in possession of those goods, where that authority has not established that the purchaser was involved in value added tax evasion and knew or ought to have known that the transaction at issue was connected with such evasion.


(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case T-561/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development programme for Galicia (2007 2013) — Rural development support measures — Compensation payments for natural handicaps — Expenses incurred by Spain — On-the-spot checks — Obligation to carry out a census of animals — Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 — Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Default procedure)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, Galicia, less-favoured agricultural area, rural development








C_2015302EN.01004901.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/49





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-561/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development programme for Galicia (2007 2013) - Rural development support measures - Compensation payments for natural handicaps - Expenses incurred by Spain - On-the-spot checks - Obligation to carry out a census of animals - Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 - Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Default procedure))
(2015/C 302/63)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially N. Díaz Abad, then M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 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 2013 L 219, p. 49) in so far as it concerns expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain amounting to EUR 7 57  968,97.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.