do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-565/14: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision concerning the notification by Poland of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions — Refusal of internal review — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Lateness — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law)
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, access to EU information, air quality, industrial pollution, national planning, pollution control








C_2015381EN.01003001.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/30





Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission
(Case T-565/14) (1)

((Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision concerning the notification by Poland of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions - Refusal of internal review - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))
(2015/C 381/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, S. Petrova and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 804 final of 17 February 2014 on the notification by the Republic of Poland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU, on industrial emissions, and, secondly, for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 June 2014 (Ares (2014) 1915757) declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request that the Commission review its decision of 17 February 2014.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland.










3.


European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


EEB, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Case C-388/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotope, building permit, protected area, regional development, regional planning, sensitive area, town-planning regulations, town-planning scheme








C_2015354EN.01001901.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen
(Case C-388/15)
(2015/C 354/21)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Question referred

The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.
Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?


(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).
Case T-321/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels — Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, building safety, fire protection, security services, tendering








C_2015320EN.01003101.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/31





Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament
(Case T-321/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels - Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
(2015/C 320/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, avocat)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, in essence, for suspension of operation, first, of the decision of 12 June 2015 in which the Parliament declared non-compliant the tender submitted by the applicants in respect of the tendering procedure for service contract EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels, and, secondly, the decision by which that contract was awarded to the company Securitas.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The order of 25 June 2015 in Case T-321/15 R is cancelled.










3.


Costs are reserved.
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: international trade, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, trade regulations








L_2015189EN.01000101.xml










17.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 189/1







Notice concerning the entry into force of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in Washington on 3 March 1973
          (1), has entered into force on 8 July 2015, in accordance with Article XXII, paragraph 2, of that Convention.


(1)  
            OJ L 75, 19.3.2015, p. 4.
Case C-381/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zamora (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez v Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, consumer protection, interest, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2015302EN.01002601.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zamora (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez v Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)
(Case C-381/15)
(2015/C 302/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Zamora

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez

Defendant: Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)

Questions referred







1)


Is a situation where a declaration that a floor clause in a mortgage loan contract is unfair and therefore void takes effect, not from the date of the conclusion of the contract, but from a later date contrary to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?










2)


Does the application of the unfair term for the period of time laid down by the Spanish Tribunal Supremo give rise to unjust enrichment for the professional contractor, not allowed by the Community legislation in so far as it does not restore a balance between the parties and benefits the party to the contract who imposed the financial term held to be unfair?










3)


Is the criterion of the risk of severe disruptions to the national economy, to be met for limiting the application and effects of an unfair term, applicable to an individual action brought by a consumer or, on the contrary, in that individual action, does the criterion of risk of serious disruption refer to that caused to the financial position of the consumer as a result of the limitation of the effects of the term declared void to the period specified?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case F-104/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, survivor's benefit








C_2015302EN.01007101.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/71





Action brought on 17 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-104/15)
(2015/C 302/88)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decisions of 24 September 2014 and 10 April 2015;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-392/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Railway Agency
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, information system, invitation to tender, rail transport








C_2015328EN.01001301.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/13





Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Railway Agency
(Case T-392/15)
(2015/C 328/12)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Αthens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Βrussels, Βelgium) (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Railway Agency (ERA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Railway Agency which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 08/05/2015 from the Head of Resources and Support Unit and whereby ERA ranked in second place the applicant’s tender for one of three individual lots and specifically for Lot 1 ‘On-site time and means information system development, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-029728 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESPEISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’·










—


annul the decision of the European Railway Agency which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 01/07/2015 from the Head of Resources and Support Unit and whereby ERA ranked in second place the applicant’s tender for one of three individual lots and specifically for Lot 2 ‘Off-site information system development, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-029728 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESP-EISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’, and










—


order the European Railway Agency to pay all the costs of the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decisions should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, due to a breach by ERA of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the assessment of the applicants’ technical tender with respect to the existence of excessively low tenders.
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1182 of 17 July 2015 approving the adjustment programme of Greece
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Greece, economic policy, economic recession, financial aid, general budget (EU), loan, public finance, stability programme








L_2015192EN.01001901.xml










18.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 192/19








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2015/1182
of 17 July 2015
         
approving the adjustment programme of Greece


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability (1), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 sets rules for the approval of a macro-economic adjustment programme for a Member State in receipt of financial assistance, including from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM). These rules need to be consistent with the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 (2) establishing the EFSM.












(2)


Greece has been granted financial assistance from the EFSM by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1181 (3) on granting short-term Union financial assistance to Greece.












(3)


For reasons of consistency, the approval of the macroeconomic adjustment programme for Greece under Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 should be done by reference to the relevant provisions of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1181,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The measures specified in Article 3(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1181 to be taken by Greece as part of its adjustment programme are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Decision shall take effect upon the date of its notification.


Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.


Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 17 July 2015.


For the Council


The President

J. ASSELBORN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (OJ L 118, 12.5.2010, p. 1).

(3)  See page 15 of this Official Journal.
Case T-733/14: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, documentation, invitation to tender, tendering








C_2015320EN.01005103.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/51





Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament
(Case T-733/14) (1)

(2015/C 320/70)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
Information about the follow-up brought to the complaint registered under reference CHAP(2015) 227
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, complaint to the Commission, infringement procedure (EU), international transport, minimum pay








C_2015233EN.01000701.xml










17.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/7





Information about the follow-up brought to the complaint registered under reference CHAP(2015) 227
(2015/C 233/08)
The European Commission has received a series of complaints about enforcement of the German Minimum Wage Act in the international transport sector (see Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint — 
Official Journal of the European Union C 86 of 13 March 2015, p. 16).
Following an exchange of information with the German authorities and a thorough legal assessment of the German measures, the European Commission decided on 19 May 2015 to launch an infringement procedure against Germany (1) concerning the application of the Minimum Wage Act to the transport sector. The German authorities now have two months to respond to the arguments put forward by the Commission, in the Letter of Formal Notice, which is the first step in the infringement procedure.


(1)  2015/2100
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7683 — Ardian France/GoldenTree Asset Management/Maxeda DIY Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2015233EN.01000101.xml










17.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7683 — Ardian France/GoldenTree Asset Management/Maxeda DIY Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 233/01)
On 9 July 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) 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 32015M7683. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7665 — Castleton/Morgan Stanley Global Oil Merchanting Unit) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coal, commodities market, economic concentration, electrical energy, hydrocarbon, investment company, merger control








C_2015233EN.01000201.xml










17.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7665 — Castleton/Morgan Stanley Global Oil Merchanting Unit)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 233/03)
On 3 July 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) 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 32015M7665. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-387/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Hilde Orleans and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen
Date: 2015-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotope, building permit, protected area, regional development, regional planning, sensitive area, town-planning regulations, town-planning scheme








C_2015354EN.01001801.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Hilde Orleans and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen
(Case C-387/15)
(2015/C 354/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Question referred

The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.
Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?


(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).