do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-440/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, services contract








C_2015337EN.01003101.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/31





Action brought on 29 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency
(Case T-440/15)
(2015/C 337/32)
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 Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the Request Form for Services of the European Medicines Agency No SC002, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, which was communicated to the applicants on 22/05/2015, by means of an e-mail from the Head of the Central Sourcing Unit; and










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested Request Form for Services should be annulled under Article 263 TFEU, because the EMA altered the award criteria which were set out in the Technical Specifications, and introduced new criteria at the stage of sending a request form for the services of business analysts.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain countervailing measures
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping measure, bar, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2015248EN.01000401.xml










29.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/4





Notice of the impending expiry of certain countervailing measures
(2015/C 248/04)
1.   As provided for in Article 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 (1) on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community, the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury.
Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than 3 months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain stainless steel bars and rods


India


Countervailing duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 405/2011 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India (OJ L 108, 28.4.2011, p. 3).


29.4.2016






(1)  OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-417/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capacity to contract, gift, jurisdiction, land register, real property, termination of a contract








C_2015363EN.01002001.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt
(Case C-417/15)
(2015/C 363/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wolfgang Schmidt

Defendant: Christiane Schmidt

Question referred

Does a proceeding concerning the avoidance of a contract of gift on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract and the registration of the removal of an entry evidencing the donee’s right of ownership fall within the scope of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 (1), which provides for exclusive jurisdiction over rights in rem in immovable property?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Case F-110/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2015328EN.01003602.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/36





Action brought on 29 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-110/15)
(2015/C 328/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application seeking annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights into the EU pension scheme, which applies the new general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and an order for the defendant to pay a provisional sum of one euro against the damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


declare that Article 9 of the general provisions of 15 July 2011 implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;










—


annul the decision of 10 March 2015 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the EU institutions, pursuant to the general provisions of 15 July 2011 implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


in the alternative, order the European Commission to pay a provisional sum of one euro against the damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision 2014/151/CFSP of 21 March 2014 implementing Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 86, 21.3.2014)
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, removal








L_2015199EN.01004602.xml










29.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 199/46







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision 2014/151/CFSP of 21 March 2014 implementing Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 86 of 21 March 2014
)


On page 31, Annex, third entry, first column:
for:


                  ‘Matviyenko, Valentina Ivanova’,

read:


                  ‘Matviyenko, Valentina Ivanovna’.
Case T-425/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: floriculture, industrial property, plant propagation, plant variety right








C_2015328EN.01001602.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/16





Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)
(Case T-425/15)
(2015/C 328/16)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO


Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community variety EU 8536 ‘SEIMORA’

Procedure before the CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 February 2015 in Case A003/2010

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and annul the plant variety right in Community variety SEIMORA with effect from 4 October 2005;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


order the CPVO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 48(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;










—


Infringement of Article 21(1) read in conjunction with Article 65 of Regulation No 2100/94.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7664 — Schibsted Distribusjon/Amedia Distribusjon/Helthjem) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: delivery, distribution business, economic concentration, merger control, postal and telecommunications services








C_2015248EN.01000101.xml










29.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7664 — Schibsted Distribusjon/Amedia Distribusjon/Helthjem)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 248/01)
On 22 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 the English language 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 32015M7664. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-415/15 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, subsidised housing








C_2015337EN.01000901.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/9





Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission

(Case C-415/15 P)
(2015/C 337/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woonstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: P. Glazener, advocaat, and L. Hancher, professor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside, in whole or in part, the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV, in accordance with the grounds raised in the present appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a new ruling consistent with the legal findings of the Court of Justice;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

According to the first ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that the then applicants’ objections were in fact directed against the Article 17 letter and that the General Court’s review could not be extended to those objections. By its assessment, the General Court disregards the fact that, as is apparent from Article 108(1) TFEU, the justification for the legal consequences of the decision must stem from the fact that the previous situation had been incompatible with the Treaty. The General Court misinterprets the TF1 judgment by inferring from it that its review of the contested decision had to be limited to the question of whether the Commission had correctly assessed the compatibility of the existing system of aid as modified by the commitments undertaken by the Netherlands authorities.
According to the second ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that it could not assess the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission given that they were mere proposals and that it was the adoption by the Netherlands authorities which gave the appropriate measures binding force.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 284/2014 of 21 March 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 86, 21.3.2014)
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2015199EN.01004601.xml










29.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 199/46







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 284/2014 of 21 March 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 86 of 21 March 2014
)


On page 28 in the Annex, in the third entry, first column:
for:


                  ‘Matviyenko, Valentina Ivanova’
               

read:


                  ‘Matviyenko, Valentina Ivanovna’.
Case T-421/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Systran v Commission
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, damages, general legal principle, interest, machine translation








C_2015337EN.01002901.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/29





Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Systran v Commission
(Case T-421/15)
(2015/C 337/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Systran SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Hoss, E. Omes and P. Hoffmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


join the present case with Case T-481/13;










—


annul the decision of 25 June 2015 taken by the European Commission, alternatively, by the European Union;










—


order the European Commission and the European Union to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision by which, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2013 in Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg (C-103/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:245), it orders the recovery of compensatory interest, plus interest on late payment from 19 August 2013, on the amount that the Commission had paid to the applicant by way of damages following the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission (T-19/07, ECR, EU:T:2010:526), annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-481/13, Systran v Commission
 (1).


(1)  OJ 2013, C 336, p. 27.
Case T-426/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: floriculture, industrial property, plant propagation, plant variety right








C_2015328EN.01001701.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/17





Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)
(Case T-426/15)
(2015/C 328/17)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO


Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community variety EU 8536 ‘SEIMORA’

Procedure before the CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 February 2015 in Case A002/2014

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the CPVO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94;










—


Infringement of Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation No 2100/94 read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 54(2) and 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 51 of Regulation No 874/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015248EN.01000201.xml










29.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 July 2015
(2015/C 248/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1025




JPY


Japanese yen


136,46




DKK


Danish krone


7,4615




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70740




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4537




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0659




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0215




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,023




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,88




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1216




RON


Romanian leu


4,4149




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0315




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5089




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4348




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5457




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6545




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5073




KRW


South Korean won


1 283,83




ZAR


South African rand


13,8491




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8459




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5910




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 823,65




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2060




PHP


Philippine peso


50,163




RUB


Russian rouble


66,3770




THB


Thai baht


38,477




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6916




MXN


Mexican peso


17,8941




INR


Indian rupee


70,4663






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-435/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Kolachi Raj Industrial/Commission
Date: 2015-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Pakistan, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2015328EN.01001902.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/19





Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Kolachi Raj Industrial/Commission
(Case T-435/15)
(2015/C 328/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: P. Bentley, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 (1) in so far as it:






—


(i) rejects the applicant’s request for an exemption from any extension of anti-dumping measures to imports of bicycles consigned from Pakistan;










—


(ii) extends the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 (2) on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned by the Applicant from Pakistan; and










—


(iii) orders the collection of the said duty on imports consigned from Pakistan and registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 (3).














—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceeding.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 13(2)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51). More specifically, in the application of Article 13(2)(b) the defendant committed errors of procedure and law, and used incoherent reasoning.


(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not (OJ 2015 L 122, p. 4).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 of 2 September 2014 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2014 L 263, p. 5).