do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-459/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2015 by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14 Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) v Council
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, abuse of power, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2015346EN.01001102.xml










19.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/11





Appeal brought on 28 August 2015 by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14 Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) v Council
(Case C-459/15 P)
(2015/C 346/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14;










—


give final judgment in the proceedings by granting the form of order sought by the applicant, now the appellant, at first instance; that is to say, annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP (1) of 15 November 2013 and Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 (2) of 15 November 2013 in so far as they refer to, or could affect, IOEC, and remove its name from the respective annexes to those provisions;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

Error of law, in so far as the judgment erroneously states that the Council fulfilled its obligation to state reasons and did not infringe the right to an effective remedy.

Error of law, in that the judgment states that the measures against the appellant are based on evidence, when in reality they lack any factual basis and the judgment is based on presumptions. This also gave rise to a misuse of powers and infringement of the applicable legal provisions and of the principle of equal treatment.

Error of law, in that the judgment erroneously states that IOEC’s property rights and the principle of proportionality were respected.


(1)  Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3).
Case C-460/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical salt, environmental monitoring, greenhouse gas, oxide, reduction of gas emissions








C_2015389EN.01001701.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-460/15)
(2015/C 389/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 (1) invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) in so far as the second sentence of Article 49(1) provides that CO2 that is not transferred within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 49(1) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2?










2.


Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as point 10 of Annex IV provides that CO2 that is transferred to another plant for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 181, p. 30).

(2)  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 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
Case T-638/13: Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015381EN.01005801.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/58





Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)
(Case T-638/13) (1)

(2015/C 381/70)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
Case C-461/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, access to information, disclosure of information, greenhouse gas, information, tradeable emission permit








C_2015398EN.01001501.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-461/15)
(2015/C 398/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


Which information belongs to the relevant information within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU? (1) Is the restriction to be understood qualitatively or quantitatively; is, in particular, information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation which does not directly result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU and does not trigger any obligation to submit under Article 24(2) of Decision 2011/278/EU also included?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU to be interpreted as prohibiting the Member State from requiring the operator to provide information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of the installation which does not result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU?






(1)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015283EN.01000101.xml










28.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 August 2015
(2015/C 283/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1284




JPY


Japanese yen


135,62




DKK


Danish krone


7,4627




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73120




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5701




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0771




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4025




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,098




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,15




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2357




RON


Romanian leu


4,4391




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2960




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5790




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4924




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7452




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7469




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5793




KRW


South Korean won


1 330,87




ZAR


South African rand


14,8012




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2281




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5495




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 796,18




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7752




PHP


Philippine peso


52,668




RUB


Russian rouble


76,0000




THB


Thai baht


40,222




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0435




MXN


Mexican peso


19,1585




INR


Indian rupee


74,5252






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ L 52, 27.2.2008)
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: postal service, provision of services, quality standard, services of general interest, single market, universal service




L_2015225EN.01004901.xml










28.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 225/49







Corrigendum to Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 52 of 27 February 2008
)


On page 13, Article 1(8), new Article 7(2):
for:


‘2.   Member States may ensure the provision of universal services by procuring such services in accordance with applicable public procurement rules and regulations, including, as provided for in Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services (*1), competitive dialogue or negotiated procedures with or without publication of a contract notice.
[…]


read:


‘2.   Member States may ensure the provision of universal services by procuring such services in accordance with applicable public procurement rules and regulations, including, as provided for in Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (*2), competitive dialogue or negotiated procedures with or without publication of a contract notice.
[…]




(*1)  
            OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2006/97/EC (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 107).’,

(*2)  
            OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114.’.
Case C-458/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B.
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal procedure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, terrorism








C_2015354EN.01002701.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B.
(Case C-458/15)
(2015/C 354/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Party to the main proceedings

K.B.

Question referred

Is the placing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period from 11 August 2007 to 27 November 2009 (inclusive) resulting in particular from Council Decisions 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 (2), 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 (3), 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (4), 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 (5), and Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 (6) illegal?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

(2)  OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.

(3)  OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100.

(4)  OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.

(5)  OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25.

(6)  OJ 2009 L 151, p. 14.
Case T-637/13: Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffè KIMBO)
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015381EN.01005703.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/57





Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffè KIMBO)
(Case T-637/13) (1)

(2015/C 381/69)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
Case T-569/13: Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffé KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015381EN.01005702.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/57





Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffé KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)
(Case T-569/13) (1)

(2015/C 381/68)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case T-496/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2015 by CX against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-27/13, CX v Commission
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, demotion, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015371EN.01002701.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/27





Appeal brought on 28 August 2015 by CX against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2015 in Case F-27/13, CX v Commission
(Case T-496/15 P)
(2015/C 371/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: CX (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its appeal to be admissible and well-founded;










—


consequently, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, served on the same day as delivery, in Case F-27/13; and










—


give judgment itself and uphold the appellant’s initial requests and, therefore, the form of order sought at first instance, excluding any new form of order;










—


in any event, order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringements of the rights of the defence and a failure by the Civil Service Tribunal to take those rights into consideration, a lack of substance to the alleged facts, a refusal on the part of both the Commission and the Civil Service Tribunal to carry out assessments essential to the establishment of the truth, and manifest errors of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’) and of Article 9 of Annex IX to the regulations, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal acknowledges that the competent appointing authority does not have the power to penalise the official concerned by directly determining his ‘classification’ in a particular grade, but it has solely the power to downgrade him, without however properly deducing the consequences thereof.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality and manifest errors of assessment.
Case C-457/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, approximation of laws, electrical energy, energy production, greenhouse gas, report, tradeable emission permit








C_2015398EN.01001402.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-457/15)
(2015/C 398/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vattenfall Europe Generation AG

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


Does the inclusion of the category ‘Activities for the combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW’ in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC (1) result in the emissions trading obligation of an installation for the generation of electricity thereby starting on the date of the first emissions of greenhouse gases and thus potentially before the date of the first generation of electricity by the installation?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Is Article 19(2) of the Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 (2011/278/EU) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the emissions of greenhouse gases which occur prior to the start of normal operation of an installation included in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC already trigger the operator’s obligation to report and surrender emission allowances on the date of the first emissions during the construction phase of the installation?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:
Is Article 19(2) of the Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 (2011/278/EU) to be interpreted as precluding the application of the national implementing provision in Paragraph 18(4) of the Zuteilungsverordnung 2020 (2020 Allocation Regulation) to installations for the generation of electricity with regard to the determination of the start of the emissions trading obligation?






(1)  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 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
Order of the President of 28 August 2015 in Case E-22/14 Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, Sweden, access to EU information, carriage of goods, logistics, transport company








C_2016357EN.01003201.xml










29.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/32





ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
of 28 August 2015
in Case E-22/14
Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
(2016/C 357/12)
With respect to the application from Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS of 10 November 2014 seeking annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2014, the President of the Court made an Order of 28 August 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Case E-22/14 is removed from the Register.










2.


The applicants and the EFTA Surveillance Authority are to bear their own costs.










3.


The intervener is to bear its own costs.
Case T-511/15: Action brought on 28 August 2015 — Fontem Holdings 4 v OHIM (BLU ECIGS)
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2015363EN.01004201.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/42





Action brought on 28 August 2015 — Fontem Holdings 4 v OHIM (BLU ECIGS)
(Case T-511/15)
(2015/C 363/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fontem Holdings 4 BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BLU ECIGS’ — Application for registration No 12 579 603

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 2697/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Examiner dated 22 August 2014 for application No 12 579 603;










—


accept the application No 12 579 603 for registration.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7735 — Fosun/BHF-KB) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, banking, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, investment company, merger control








C_2015283EN.01000201.xml










28.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7735 — Fosun/BHF-KB)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 283/02)






1.


On 21 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 Fosun International Limited (‘Fosun’, China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of BHF Kleinwort Benson Group SA (‘BHF-KB’, Belgium) by way of a contested bid.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Fosun: private equity investor, active in insurance and banking, in the industrial sector (pharmaceuticals, healthcare, steel and mining), as well as in investment and asset management, mainly in China,
—   for BHF-KB: parent company of a financial services group, active in wealth management, asset management, private and corporate banking in the UK, Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Germany.










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 the 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.7735 — Fosun/BHF-KB, 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.