do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-119/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, work contract








C_2015354EN.01005601.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/56





Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol
(Case F-119/15)
(2015/C 354/67)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken in execution of a judgment of the General Court, confirming the refusal to grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and offering him a lump sum in an amount which, according to the applicant, is not sufficient to compensate him for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to execute the judgments of the General Court.

Form of order sought







—


Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014;










—


Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs.
Case C-449/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 August 2015 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, equal treatment, law of states, restriction on competition, right of establishment, service concession, water resources








C_2015381EN.01001601.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 August 2015 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso
(Case C-449/15)
(2015/C 381/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

Defendant: Comune di Portoscuso

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, respectively laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, and the precept of reasonableness implicit therein, preclude national legislation under which the validity of concessions of economically significant publicly-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway assets is to be repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts, the duration of that validity being statutorily increased for at least 11 years, with the effect that the same concessionaire retains the exclusive right to exploit the asset economically, even though the period of validity under the concession awarded to that concessionaire has meanwhile expired, whereby interested economic operators are deprived of any opportunity of obtaining a concession for the asset on the basis of a public tendering procedure?
Case T-484/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — KV/EACEA
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: digital literacy, education, financial aid, provision of services, services contract, traineeship, voluntary work








C_2015371EN.01002501.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/25





Action brought on 20 August 2015 — KV/EACEA
(Case T-484/15)
(2015/C 371/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KV (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision EACEA/MH/OG/OKRAPF15D013150 of the Head of Unit of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency on the financing of Agreement No 519177-LLP-1-2011-1-GR-KA3-KA3NW with regard to the project ‘Facilitating and fostering digital competence through volunteers’ project’;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment






—


The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the EACEA manifestly disregarded the nature of the services provided by the partners, the clear will of the applicant’s general assembly to address and regulate such services as it considered them to constitute a distinct category that was not falling under the provisions of the Statutes, and the fact that the services provided by the partners in the project in question met all the requirements of the aforementioned decision of the general assembly.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment






—


The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the reasoning of the decision relating to the link of subordination between the partners/shareholders and the applicant, the existence of which was clearly established in the evidence submitted to the EACEA.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7671 — KKR/FIBA/WMF) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, holding company, investment company, merger control, miscellaneous industries








C_2015275EN.01000801.xml










20.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 275/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7671 — KKR/FIBA/WMF)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 275/06)






1.


On 13 August 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 KKR & Co LP(‘KKR’, United States) and FIBA Beteiligungs- und Anlage GmbH (‘FIBA’, Austria) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking WMF Group GmbH (‘WMF’, Germany) by other means.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KKR: global investments in companies in a variety of sectors, including in the vending services company Selecta;
—   for FIBA: holding company with its main holding in the Austrian water technology company BWT AG;
—   for WMF: production and distribution of table- and kitchenware and small electrical appliances for private households as well as of table- and kitchenware and fully automated coffee machines for professional use.










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.










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.7671 — KKR/FIBA/WMF, 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’).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1424 of 20 August 2015 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pomme du Limousin (PDO))
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, Limousin, consumer information, designation of origin, foodstuff, labelling, pip fruit, product designation








L_2015223EN.01000101.xml










26.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 223/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1424
of 20 August 2015
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pomme du Limousin (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Pomme du Limousin’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 503/2007 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Pomme du Limousin’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 August 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 503/2007 of 8 May 2007 registering certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pohořelický kapr (PDO) — Žatecký chmel (PDO) — Pomme du Limousin (PDO) — Tome des Bauges (PDO)) (OJ L 119, 9.5.2007, p. 5).

(3)  
            OJ C 120, 15.4.2015, p. 6.
Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the second half of 2014
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: Standing Committee of the EFTA States
Subjects: EFTA countries, European Economic Area, dangerous substance, environmental protection, product safety








C_2015275EN.01000201.xml










20.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 275/2





Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the second half of 2014
(2015/C 275/02)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods


To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No. 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following list concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 July – 31 December 2014, at their meeting on 20 March 2015.


ANNEX

List of authorisation decisions

The following authorisation decisions in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) have been taken in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 July – 31 December 2014:








Substance name


Commission Decision under Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006


Country


Date of decision




Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)


C(2014) 5551 final


Norway


4 September 2014
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015275EN.01000101.xml










20.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 275/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 August 2015
(2015/C 275/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1041




JPY


Japanese yen


137,31




DKK


Danish krone


7,4633




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70490




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4604




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0755




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1680




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,82




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1731




RON


Romanian leu


4,4331




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2243




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5026




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4431




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5594




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6789




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5505




KRW


South Korean won


1 308,79




ZAR


South African rand


14,2438




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0614




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5500




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 283,36




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5290




PHP


Philippine peso


51,138




RUB


Russian rouble


72,5580




THB


Thai baht


39,300




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8404




MXN


Mexican peso


18,1282




INR


Indian rupee


72,0687






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7538 — Knorr-Bremse/Vossloh) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, merger control, rail transport, safety device








C_2015275EN.01000601.xml










20.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 275/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7538 — Knorr-Bremse/Vossloh)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 275/04)






1.


On 10 August 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 undertaking KB Holding GmbH (‘KB’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Vossloh Aktiengesellschaft (‘Vossloh’, Germany), by way of acquisition of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KB: holding company of Knorr-Bremse AG (Germany), manufacturer of braking systems and other subsystems for rail and commercial vehicles;
—   for Vossloh: manufacture of rail infrastructure and rail technology, including locomotives, provision of related services.










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.










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.7538 — Knorr-Bremse/Vossloh 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’).
Case F-120/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, work contract








C_2015354EN.01005602.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/56





Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol
(Case F-120/15)
(2015/C 354/68)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken in execution of a judgment of the General Court, confirming the refusal to grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and offering him a lump sum in an amount which, according to the applicant, is not sufficient to compensate him for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to execute the judgments of the General Court.

Form of order sought







—


Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014;










—


Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7709 — Bright Food Group/Invermik) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pastry-making, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2015275EN.01000701.xml










20.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 275/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7709 — Bright Food Group/Invermik)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 275/05)






1.


On 12 August 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 undertaking Bright Food (Group) Co., Ltd (‘Bright Food Group’, China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Invermik, S.A. and its following wholly-owned subsidiaries: Miquel Alimentació Grup, S.A.U.; Miquel Alimentació Food Service, S.L.U.; Miquel Alimentació Food Service Canarias, S.L.U.; Miquel Alimentació Grup CM Canarias, S.L.U.; and Miquel Alimentació Grup Colombia, S.A.S. (‘Invermik’, Spain), by way of acquisition of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bright Food Group: manufacture and distribution of food products, active in Europe mainly through the following companies: Diva (France), Manassen (Australia), Salov (Italy), Synlait (New Zealand), Tnuva (Israel) and Weetabix (United Kingdom),
—   for Invermik: wholesale and retail sale of daily consumer goods primarily in Spain.










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.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7709 — Bright Food Group/Invermik 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’).
Case T-479/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — Lotte v OHIM — Kuchenmeister (KOALA LAND)
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015337EN.01003801.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/38





Action brought on 20 August 2015 — Lotte v OHIM — Kuchenmeister (KOALA LAND)
(Case T-479/15)
(2015/C 337/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter and S. Schicker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kuchenmeister GmbH (Soest, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘KOALA LAND’ — Application for registration No 10 766 723

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2015 in Case R 815/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, notified to the applicant on 23 June 2015, concerning the application for registration of Community trademark No 10 766 723 ‘KOALA LAND’;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-477/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg e.a. v ECHA
Date: 2015-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, information system, information technology industry, services contract








C_2015363EN.01004001.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/40





Action brought on 20 August 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg e.a. v ECHA
(Case T-477/15)
(2015/C 363/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure ECHA/2014/86 communicated to the applicants in its letter of 25 June 2014, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another consortium;










—


order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, for the amount of 5 20  000 euros; and










—


order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that ECHA infringed the obligation to state reasons within the evaluation of their tender by not providing the relative advantages of the winning tender.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer and subsidiarily that it introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.