do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015279EN.01000101.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/1







Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 279/01)


Last publication


OJ C 270, 17.8.2015


Past publications


OJ C 262, 10.8.2015


OJ C 254, 3.8.2015


OJ C 245, 27.7.2015


OJ C 236, 20.7.2015


OJ C 228, 13.7.2015


OJ C 221, 6.7.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-485/15: Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council
Date: 2015-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Libya, directory, economic sanctions, freedom of movement, international sanctions, ownership, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2015337EN.01004101.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/41





Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council
(Case T-485/15)
(2015/C 337/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1323 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council does not have the competence to list the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, his name being mentioned neither in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) nor in its amending Resolutions 2213 (2015) and 2214 (2015).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, divided into two parts:






—


breach of the obligation to state reasons;










—


breach of the applicant’s rights of the defence on account of the lack of adversary proceedings.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rules of law relating to the application of the EU Treaties, divided into two parts:






—


breach of the presumption of innocence;










—


breach of fundamental rights, to the extent that, by imposing restrictive measures on the applicant, the Council undermined his freedom to come and go and his property rights.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are without merit, to the extent that there is no solid factual basis establishing their relevance.
Case C-453/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against A, B
Date: 2015-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, VAT, criminal proceedings, emission trading, greenhouse gas








C_2015363EN.01002401.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against A, B
(Case C-453/15)
(2015/C 363/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

A, B

Question referred

Is Article 56(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that an allowance under Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (2) which confers a right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent during a specified period is a ‘similar right’ within the meaning of that provision?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347. p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.
Case T-482/15: Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission
Date: 2015-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, award of contract, furniture industry, supplies contract, technology assessment








C_2015337EN.01004001.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/40





Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission
(Case T-482/15)
(2015/C 337/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ahrend Furniture (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce, V. Dor and S. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


order the annulment of the decision of the Commission of unknown date awarding lot 1 of call for tender OIB.DR.2/PO/2014/055/622 — ‘Supply of furniture’ to another tenderer;










—


order the defendant to pay all 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, alleging that the defendant made errors of fact and of law during the qualitative and technical analysis of the applicant’s tender.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant was not informed, despite requests for same, of particulars relating to the financial evaluation of the tenders.
Case C-454/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)
Date: 2015-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: account, bank deposit, financial solvency, pay, supplementary pension








C_2015389EN.01001601.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)
(Case C-454/15)
(2015/C 389/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jürgen Webb-Sämann

Defendant: Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

Question referred

Is a national understanding of a rule under which outstanding salary claims which were deposited with the employer in order to be paid over to a pension fund by a particular date but which were not paid by that employer into a separate account and therefore did not come within the scope of a right to have those claims excluded from insolvency proceedings in respect of the employer’s assets (Aussonderungsrecht) pursuant to Paragraph 47 of the German Insolvency Regulation contrary to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) or to other EU law?


(1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).
Case C-450/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA
Date: 2015-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, fine, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition








C_2015381EN.01001701.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA
(Case C-450/15)
(2015/C 381/20)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

Question referred

Does the principle of proportionality, which must guide the process of quantifying fines — as affirmed by Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — preclude an interpretation of Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in the version consolidated by the European Commission through the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006/C 201/02), and practice, including national practice, according to which the fine to be applied to undertakings which have breached the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements is to be calculated by applying the circumstances to the basic amount resulting from the calculation of the various factors which have to be taken into account under EU law, and in any event before the reduction to 10 % of turnover, with the risk that the application of the extenuating circumstances to the basic amount may prove entirely unsuitable for having the effect of personalising the fine, the circumstances of which, by contrast, are predetermined by the adjustment of the relevant amount according to the characteristics of the specific case?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).