do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-20/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — FG v European Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Regulation No 1023/2013 — Types of posts — Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Suitability for promotion to the grade above — Promotion year 2014 — Administrator without ‘particular responsibilities’ — Promotion possibilities capped at grade AD 12 — Name of that administrator not included in the list of promotable officials in grade AD 12 — Possibility of requesting to benefit under Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Deadline of 31 December 2015 — Admissibility of the action — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Amendment of the digital personal file of the official — Administrative information — Published on the institution’s intranet — Failure to satisfy the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, pay rise, pay scale, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015279EN.01005302.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/53






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — FG v European Commission
(Case F-20/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts - Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Suitability for promotion to the grade above - Promotion year 2014 - Administrator without ‘particular responsibilities’ - Promotion possibilities capped at grade AD 12 - Name of that administrator not included in the list of promotable officials in grade AD 12 - Possibility of requesting to benefit under Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Deadline of 31 December 2015 - Admissibility of the action - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Amendment of the digital personal file of the official - Administrative information - Published on the institution’s intranet - Failure to satisfy the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2015/C 279/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FG (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and E. Ehrbar, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AD 13 in promotion year 2014.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 41.
Case C-172/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Arrangement for sharing clients on a private pension fund market — Whether there is a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE — Effect on trade between Member States)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, supplementary pension








C_2015302EN.01000801.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/8





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței
(Case C-172/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Arrangement for sharing clients on a private pension fund market - Whether there is a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE - Effect on trade between Member States))
(2015/C 302/09)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA

Defendant: Consiliul Concurenței

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that agreements to share clients, such as those concluded between the private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constitute agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market.


(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
Case T-69/15: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — NK Rosneft and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, territorial dispute, trade restriction








C_2015337EN.01001202.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/12





Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — NK Rosneft and Others v Council
(Case T-69/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Lis pendens - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2015/C 337/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: NK Rosneft OAO (Moscow, Russia); RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO (Moscow); RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO (Yuzhniy-Sakhalin, Russia); RN-Exploration OOO (Moscow); and Tagulskoe OOO (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2)


NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case C-485/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 TFEU and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given — Exemption — Gifts and legacies — Difference in treatment — Bodies located in another Member State — Lack of a bilateral tax agreement)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European Economic Area, bilateral agreement, capital transfer tax, free movement of capital, infringement of EU law, public institution, tax convention, tax exemption, transfer of property








C_2015311EN.01001202.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/12





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-485/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given - Exemption - Gifts and legacies - Difference in treatment - Bodies located in another Member State - Lack of a bilateral tax agreement))
(2015/C 311/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


declares that, by exempting from droits de mutation à titre gratuit (duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given) gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France or in another Member State or in another State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has concluded a bilateral agreement with it, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and










2.


orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, VAT rate, control of State aid, electric vehicle, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2015232EN.01001301.xml










16.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/13





No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2015/C 232/09)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement or raises no objections to them:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


21 April 2015





Case No



:


76399





Decision No



:


150/15/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:


State aid measures in favour of electric vehicles





Legal basis



:


Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
or
Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement





Type of measure



:


No State aid: allowance granted to electric vehicles to drive in bus lanes.
Compatible State aid: (i) the zero VAT rating for the supply and import of electric vehicles, (ii) the zero VAT rating for the leasing of electric vehicles, (iii) the zero VAT rating for the supply and import of batteries to electric vehicles, (iv) the reduced annual vehicle tax for electric vehicles, (v) the non-payment of road tolls by electric vehicles, (vi) electric cars free boarding on classified national road ferries, and (vii) the favourable income tax calculation for employees benefitting from private use of company electric cars.





Objective



:


Environmental aid





Form of aid



:


Mainly tax exemptions





Budget



:


Estimated around NOK 1 500 million per year





Duration



:


Until 31 December 2017 for the VAT measures





Economic sectors



:


Manufacture of vehicles (NACE C.28.1.1). Electric vehicles.





Name and address of the granting authority



:


Ministry of Finance




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case T-390/15: Action brought on 16 July 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — PepsiCo (3D)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015311EN.01005302.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/53





Action brought on 16 July 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — PepsiCo (3D)
(Case T-390/15)
(2015/C 311/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Testa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community black and white figurative mark containing the word elements ‘3D’ — Application for registration No 9 384 041

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 08/05/2015 in Case R 465//2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, admitting application No 009384041 to registration for the following goods: chocolate; pastry; confectionary; candies; chew candies; drops; gumdrops; caramel; chewing gum; bubble gums; lollipops; licorice; jellies (confectionery); toffee; mints; sweets










—


order PepsiCo, Inc. to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-103/15: Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, deduction at source, hospital expenses, married person, pension scheme








C_2015354EN.01005501.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/55





Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-103/15)
(2015/C 354/65)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to withhold the sum of EUR 14  207,60 from the applicant’s pension by way of reimbursement of costs relating to hospital treatment received by his wife, as a consequence of the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal annulling the Commission’s initial decision that the applicant should bear all the hospital costs deemed excessive.

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, in breach of the ruling given by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 May 2013 and for all the reasons set out in the body of the application, the European Commission unlawfully withheld from the applicant’s pension the sum of EUR 14  207,60;










—


Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of reimbursement of the amount unduly withheld, the sum of EUR 14  207,60, together with default interest;










—


Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA, European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy transport








C_2015232EN.01001201.xml










16.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/12





No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2015/C 232/08)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


25 March 2015





Case No



:


75358





Decision No



:


67/15/COL





EFTA State



:


Iceland





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:


Sale and transmission of electricity to United Silicon hf.





Legal basis



:








—


Power Contract signed with Landsvirkjun










—


Transmission Power Agreement signed with Landsnet









Type of measure



:


No State aid




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case C-21/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China — Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT))
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Armenia, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, common commercial policy, dumping, import (EU)








C_2015311EN.01000701.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/7





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union
(Case C-21/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China - Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT)))
(2015/C 311/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Rusal Armenal ZAO (represented by B. Evtimov, lawyer), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J. P. Hix, Agents, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat)

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Parliament (represented by D. Warin and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Rusal Armenal v Council (T-512/09, EU:T:2013:571);










2)


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the pleas in law on which it did not adjudicate;










3)


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.