do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-498/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Spirál-Gép Kft. v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, carriage of goods, fine, large vehicle, principle of proportionality, road transport tariff, traffic offence, traffic regulations, transport infrastructure








C_2016027EN.01000401.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Spirál-Gép Kft. v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
(Case C-498/15)
(2016/C 027/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Spirál-Gép Kft.

Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

Questions referred







1)


Must the requirement for proportionality laid down in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1) (‘the Eurovignette Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a system of penalties such as that laid down in Annex 9 to Decree No 410/2007 of 29 December on the list of traffic offences subject to the penalty of an administrative fine, the amount of the fines that may be imposed in the event of breach of the relevant provisions, the system of imposing those fines and the conditions for participating in controls [a közigazgatási bírsággal sújtandó közlekedési szabályszegések köréről, az e tevékenységekre vonatkozó rendelkezések megsértése esetén kiszabható bírságok összegéről, felhasználásának rendjéről és az ellenőrzésben történő közreműködés feltételeiről szóló 410/2007. (XII. 29.) Korm. Rendelet] (‘the Law on penalties’) which provides for the imposition of a fine at a certain amount — unrelated to the gravity of the offence — in the event of failure to comply with the requirements relating to the acquisition of a route ticket?










2)


Does Paragraph 9 of the Law on penalties comply with the requirement imposed by Article 9a of the Eurovignette Directive, according to which penalties established under national law must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive?










3)


Must the requirement for proportionality laid down in Article 9a of the Eurovignette Directive be interpreted as precluding, on the one hand, a system of penalties such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the strict liability of the person responsible for an offence and, on the other hand, the amount of the fine laid down under that system?






(1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42).
Case T-545/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — Pi-Design v OHIM — Nestlé (PRESSO)
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015371EN.01004301.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/43





Action brought on 22 September 2015 — Pi-Design v OHIM — Nestlé (PRESSO)
(Case T-545/15)
(2015/C 371/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Apelt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘PRESSO’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 093 132

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2015 in Case R 428/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7715 — BNP Paribas/GE Capital (European Fleet Leasing Business)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, merger control, rental business, vehicle fleet








C_2015312EN.01000201.xml










22.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7715 — BNP Paribas/GE Capital (European Fleet Leasing Business))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 312/02)






1.


On 14 September 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 BNP Paribas SA (‘BNP Paribas’, France) acquires via its wholly-owned subsidiary Arval Service Lease SA within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control over the European vehicle fleet leasing business (the ‘Target’) of General Electric Capital Corporation (‘GE’, USA), by way of purchase of securities and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


BNP Paribas SA is the parent company of the BNP Paribas Group. The Group’s business can be divided into two main branches: (i) retail banking and services, and (ii) corporate and institutional banking. Within the first branch, apart from its activity of retail banking, it also provides other services such as vehicle fleet leasing and management services via Arval Service Lease SA.










—


The Target is active in long term vehicle fleet leasing and management services in 12 European countries.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7715 — BNP Paribas/GE Capital (European Fleet Leasing Business), 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7771 — Parcom/Pon/Imtech Marine/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronics industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015312EN.01000401.xml










22.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7771 — Parcom/Pon/Imtech Marine/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 312/04)






1.


On 14 September 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 Parcom Capital Management BV (‘Parcom’, The Netherlands) and Pon Holdings BV (‘Pon’, The Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Imtech Marine Group BV (‘Imtech Marine’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Parcom: private equity fund;
—   for Pon: provider of various products and services, including electrical engineerig for maritime market;
—   for Imtech Marine: provider of electrical engineering for maritime market.










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 M.7771 — Parcom/Pon/Imtech Marine/JV, 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-125/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, indemnification, pay scale, promotion








C_2015398EN.01008001.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/80





Action brought on 22 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-125/15)
(2015/C 398/95)
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

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 8 in the 2014 promotion exercise and compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 November 2014 not to promote the applicant in the 2014 promotion exercise;










—


order the European Commission to pay EUR 15  000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015314EN.01000201.xml










23.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 September 2015
(2015/C 314/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1155




JPY


Japanese yen


133,75




DKK


Danish krone


7,4602




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72230




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3412




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0860




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2145




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,057




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,55




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1970




RON


Romanian leu


4,4225




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3881




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5732




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4804




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6451




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7715




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5817




KRW


South Korean won


1 322,15




ZAR


South African rand


15,2542




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1129




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6235




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 257,25




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8017




PHP


Philippine peso


52,041




RUB


Russian rouble


73,9790




THB


Thai baht


40,164




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4809




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7248




INR


Indian rupee


73,5068






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-499/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas lodged on 22 September 2015 — W. and V. v X.
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dependant, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, maintenance obligation, matrimonial law, parental responsibility, residence, rights of access








C_2015414EN.01001702.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas lodged on 22 September 2015 — W. and V. v X.
(Case C-499/15)
(2015/C 414/21)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: W. and V.

Defendant: X.

Question referred

On the basis of Articles 8 to 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which Member State — that is to say, the Republic of Lithuania or the Kingdom of the Netherlands — has jurisdiction to deal with the case concerning the changes to the place of residence, to the child maintenance amount and to the applicable contact arrangements in respect of the minor child, V., who is habitually resident in the Kingdom of the Netherlands?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015312EN.01000101.xml










22.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 September 2015
(2015/C 312/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1250




JPY


Japanese yen


135,50




DKK


Danish krone


7,4608




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72430




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3300




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0906




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2205




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,053




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,12




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1866




RON


Romanian leu


4,4210




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3612




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5693




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4831




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7188




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7696




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5843




KRW


South Korean won


1 325,46




ZAR


South African rand


15,0071




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1643




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6363




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 280,28




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7931




PHP


Philippine peso


52,274




RUB


Russian rouble


74,1125




THB


Thai baht


40,269




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4529




MXN


Mexican peso


18,6722




INR


Indian rupee


73,9297






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-496/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: deduction at source, financial solvency, fraud, frontier worker, labour law, personal income tax








C_2015429EN.01000803.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit
(Case C-496/15)
(2015/C 429/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alphonse Eschenbrenner

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law (in particular Article 45 TFEU (formerly Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1)), in the case of an employee who pursues an occupational activity in Germany, who is resident in another Member State and not subject to income tax liability in Germany, and for whom insolvency benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, that, in the event of his employer’s insolvency, the remuneration from employment used to calculate his insolvency benefit is subject to the notional taxation that would be charged as a deduction on his remuneration from employment were he subject to income tax liability in Germany, if he no longer has the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative, can it be considered compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law if, in the circumstances described, the employee retains the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.
Case F-124/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, early retirement, indemnification, interest, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015414EN.01004201.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/42





Action brought on 22 September 2015 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-124/15)
(2015/C 414/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to take further action on the application made by the applicant for early retirement, in so far as it was taken after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, thus withdrawing the previous favourable decision, and application for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision of 12 November 2014 and, in consequence,










—


Pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant, assessed, subject to possible increase or decrease during the proceedings, at EUR 85  353,96 (eighty-five thousand, three hundred and fifty-three euros and ninety-six cents), together with interest to run from the date on which the claim was made, 12 February 2015, calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs.
Case T-161/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2015 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, bank, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015371EN.01002201.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/22





Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2015 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council
(Case T-161/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality))
(2015/C 371/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd (Labuan, Malaysia) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for partial annulment of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) and, second, for annulment of the Council’s decision to maintain the restrictive measures concerning the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls, in so far as they concern First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd:






—


Point I of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;










—


Point I of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;














2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders First Islamic Investment Bank to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the Council of the European Union, and the Council to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of First Islamic Investment Bank.






(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case T-548/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — Guiral Broto v OHIM — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
Date: 2015-09-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015398EN.01005801.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/58





Action brought on 22 September 2012 — Guiral Broto v OHIM — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
(Case T-548/15)
(2015/C 398/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Café del Sol’ — Application for registration No 6 1 05  985

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2015 in Case R 2755/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and declare the admissibility of the opposition based on the priority trade mark owned by the opposing party, Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, falling within Class 42 of the International Classification.










—


if the opposition is allowed, confirm the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark No 006105985 CAFÉ DEL SOL applied for with respect to the ‘provision of food and beverages, temporary accommodation and catering’, falling within Class 43 of the International Classification, requested by German company Gastro & Soul GmbH; or, in the event that the Court does not have jurisdiction to do so, refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, with the direction to grant the opposition.










—


with respect to the evidence, consider the documents annexed to the present application, numbered 1 to 4, as specified in the attached list of accompanying documents, as having been provided together with the relevant evidence in the administrative procedure.





Pleas in law







—


Inconsistency ‘extra petitum’ of the contested decision, since the applicant did not raise the inadmissibility of the opposition as one of the grounds for the application.










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.