do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1335 of 31 July 2015 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, democratisation, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








L_2015206EN.01006401.xml










1.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 206/64








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2015/1335
of 31 July 2015
         
implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 15 October 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/642/CFSP, which imposes restrictive measures against Belarus.












(2)


The Council considers that 24 persons should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in the Annex to Decision 2012/642/CFSP.












(3)


The Annex to Decision 2012/642/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Annex to Decision 2012/642/CFSP is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 31 July 2015.


For the Council


The President

J. ASSELBORN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.




ANNEX
The entries concerning the following persons are deleted from the list set out in Section A ‘Persons’ of the Annex to Decision 2012/642/CFSP:






1.


Ablameika, Siarhei Uladzimiravich




5.


Alpeeva, Tamara Mikhailauna




6.


Ananich, Alena Mikalaeuna




13.


Balauniou, Mikalai Vasilievich




15.


Baranouski, Andrei Fiodaravich




19.


Batura, Mikhail Paulavich




32.


Charniak, Alena Leanidauna




39.


Dubinina/Rouda, Zhanna Piatrouna




56.


Husakova, Volha Arkadzieuna




106.


Kuzniatsova, Natallia Anatolieuna




109.


Laptseva, Alena Viacheslavauna




126.


Maltsau, Leanid Siamionavich




130.


Merkul, Natallia Viktarauna




140.


Niavyhlas, Henadz Mikalaevich




144.


Padhaiski, Henadz Danatavich




145.


Paluyan, Uladzimir Mikalaevich




149.


Piatkevich, Natallia Uladzimirauna




150.


Poludzen, Iauhen Iauhenavich




151.


Prakopau, Yury Viktaravich




160.


Rubinau, Anatol Mikalaevich




203.


Tselitsa, Lidziia Fiodarauna




213.


Varenik, Natallia Siamionauna




215.


Vasilieu, Aliaksei Aliaksandravich




231.


Ziankevich, Valiantsina Mikalaeuna
Case F-111/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, cancer, health expenditure, married person, therapeutics








C_2015354EN.01005502.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/55





Action brought on 31 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-111/15)
(2015/C 354/66)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant and his spouse reimbursement of the costs concerning three invoices for medical treatment and treatment relating to the cancer from which she is suffering.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision refusing reimbursement of itemised accounts 67, 68 and 72 concerning the healthcare expenses incurred by the applicant’s spouse;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7674 — Talanx/NORD/LB/Caplantic) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, insurance, investment, merger control








C_2015250EN.01000601.xml










31.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/6





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7674 — Talanx/NORD/LB/Caplantic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 250/02)
On 24 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 32015M7674. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-425/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Udo Voigt v President of the European Parliament, European Parliament
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), jurisdiction








C_2016048EN.01000802.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/8





Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Udo Voigt v President of the European Parliament, European Parliament
(Case C-425/15)
(2016/C 048/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Udo Voigt (represented by: P. R. Richter, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendants: President of the European Parliament, European Parliament
By Order of 29 October 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) held that it clearly does not have jurisdiction to decide on the action for annulment brought by Mr Udo Voigt on 31 July 2015 and referred the case to the General Court of the European Union. It reserved the decision on costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7672 — Volkswagen Financial Services/Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria/Volkswagen Credit Compania Financiera) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2015250EN.01000901.xml










31.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7672 — Volkswagen Financial Services/Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria/Volkswagen Credit Compania Financiera)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 250/06)






1.


On 17 July 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Volkswagen Financial Services AG (‘VWFS’, Germany), a wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG (Germany) and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (‘BBVA’, Spain) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over Volkswagen Credit Compañía Financiera SA (‘VWCCF’, Argentina), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for VWFS: coordination of the worldwide financial services activities of the Volkswagen Group in Europe, Asia-Pacific, Mexico and South America;
—   for BBVA: provision of financial and non-financial services, including banking, pension and insurance in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, Mexico, South America and USA;
—   for VWCCF: provision of financial services to the automotive industry in Argentina.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7672 — Volkswagen Financial Services/Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria/Volkswagen Credit Compania Financiera, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-432/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ffauf (ZARA)
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015320EN.01003902.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/39





Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ffauf (ZARA)
(Case T-432/15)
(2015/C 320/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ffauf SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ZARA’ — Community trade mark registration No 732 958

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2015 in Case R 867/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in particular regarding the revocation of the CTM registration No 732958 ‘ZARA’ for the challenged goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 42(2), 51(1)(a), 52(2) and 85(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case C-423/14: Order of the President of the Court of 31 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, consumer protection, fixing of prices, gas supply, tax








C_2015398EN.01002302.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/23





Order of the President of the Court of 31 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA
(Case C-423/14) (1)

(2015/C 398/30)
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
Case C-424/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros v Administración del Estado
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, data protection, professional qualifications, regulation of telecommunications, single market, supervisory body, unfair dismissal








C_2015363EN.01002101.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros v Administración del Estado
(Case C-424/15)
(2015/C 363/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Questions referred







1.


Is Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (1) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services to be interpreted to the effect that, from the perspective of the effective protection of the public interest for which the relevant national regulatory body is responsible, the creation by the national legislature of a regulatory and supervisory body of an unspecialised institutional model, which merges into a single body the pre-existing supervisory bodies in the energy, telecommunications and competition fields, may be considered compatible with the directive?










2.


Must the conditions of ‘independence’ of national regulatory authorities for electronic communications networks and services, referred to in Article 3(2) and (3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (2), be the same as those required for national supervisory authorities for data protection under Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC (3)?










3.


Is the decision in the judgment in Commission v Hungary, C-288/12 (4), applicable to a situation in which the officers of a national telecommunications regulatory authority are dismissed before their term of office has expired owing to the requirements of the new legal framework which creates a supervisory body grouping together various national regulatory authorities for regulated sectors? May that early dismissal, due only to the entry into force of a new national law and not to an unforeseen change in the circumstances of the office-holders as previously established in national law, be considered compatible with the provisions of Article 3 (3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC?






(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37.

(3)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

(4)  EU:C:2014:237.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7667 — Danaher/Pall) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-pollution device, dental medicine, economic concentration, measuring equipment, mechanical equipment, medical device, merger control, water supply








C_2015250EN.01000701.xml










31.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/7





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7667 — Danaher/Pall)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 250/04)
On 24 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 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 32015M7667. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-441/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, provision of services, software








C_2015328EN.01002601.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/26





Action brought on 31 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency
(Case T-441/15)
(2015/C 328/24)
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 decision of the European Medicines Agency (ΕMA) which was notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail of 04/06/2015 from the IT Resource Manager, whereby the EMA rejected two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in relation to Request Form for Services No SC001 in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement;·










—


order the EMA to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity to conclude individual Project Manager contracts under Request Form for Services No SC001, which the applicants estimate ex aequo et bono at eight thousand euros (EUR 8  000), with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or such other sum as the General Court deems appropriate, and










—


order the EMA to pay all the costs of the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled under Article 263 TFEU, because it is in breach of the principle of proportionality which governs public procurement. More specifically, the contested decision rejected the applicants’ candidates due to the absence of certification in the PRINCE2 methodology, a criterion which is neither appropriate nor necessary and is therefore in breach of the principle of proportionality in public procurement.
Accordingly, the EMA committed a clear infringement of a specific rule of law (Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation) which confers rights on individuals, and caused harm to the applicants, since they lost the opportunity to conclude individual Project Manager contracts, and consequently the conditions for the payment of compensation to the applicants are satisfied.
Case C-423/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU employment policy, European social policy, equal treatment, gender equality, indemnification, job access, job application, occupational status








C_2015320EN.01002101.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG
(Case C-423/15)
(2015/C 320/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nils-Johannes Kratzer

Defendant: R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Questions referred







1.


On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (2), does a person who, as is clear from his application, is seeking not recruitment and employment but merely the status of applicant in order to bring claims for compensation also qualify as seeking ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:




Can a situation in which the status of applicant was obtained not with a view to recruitment and employment but for the purpose of claiming compensation be considered as an abuse of rights under EU law?


(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.
Case T-618/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Voigt v Parliament
Date: 2015-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Parliament, abuse of power, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, press release, public building, right to information








C_2016106EN.01003502.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/35





Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Voigt v Parliament
(Case T-618/15)
(2016/C 106/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Udo Voigt (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the refusal of the President of the European Parliament to give access to the rooms of the European Parliament for the applicant’s press-conference planned for 16 June 2015;










—


annul the ban from entering the premises of the European Parliament imposed by the President of the European Parliament on the Russian participants of the press conference of 16 June 2015;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties






—


The applicant claims that the refusal of the use of the requested rooms and the ban imposed on the Russian participants of the press conference from entering the European Parliament infringes the Treaties or the relevant provisions for their enforcement.










—


In accordance with the rules of the President of the European Parliament’s office on political group meetings of 4 July 2005, the applicant is entitled to have the requested rooms made available. No exceptional grounds for the refusal were present, since the rooms had not been reserved for the time at issue and the planned press conference did not pose a risk to security and would not have adversely affected the Parliament’s functioning. The applicant was thereby hindered from providing information on his parliamentary work.










—


The ban from entering the premises imposed on the Russian guests infringes the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin and nationality (Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).














2.


Second plea in law: misuse of powers






—


The applicant claims that the actions of the President of the European Parliament were manifestly purely arbitrary and are diametrically opposed to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the Treaties.