do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-28/13: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015429EN.01002902.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/29





Order of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)
(Case T-28/13) (1)

(2015/C 429/38)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Special Report No 11/2015 — ‘Are the Fisheries Partnership Agreements well managed by the Commission?’
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Community fisheries, fishery management, fishing agreement, fishing rights, fishing vessel, quantity of fish landed, sea fishing








C_2015348EN.01000301.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/3





Special Report No 11/2015
‘Are the Fisheries Partnership Agreements well managed by the Commission?’
(2015/C 348/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 11/2015 ‘Are the Fisheries Partnership Agreements well managed by the Commission?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case F-57/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — AQ v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Regulation No 45/2001 — Processing of personal data acquired for private purposes — Administrative enquiry — Disciplinary procedure — Rights of the defence — Duty to state reasons — Disciplinary penalty — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, disciplinary proceedings, personal data, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2015398EN.01007801.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/78





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — AQ v Commission
(Case F-57/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Regulation No 45/2001 - Processing of personal data acquired for private purposes - Administrative enquiry - Disciplinary procedure - Rights of the defence - Duty to state reasons - Disciplinary penalty - Proportionality))
(2015/C 398/92)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AQ (represented initially by: L. Massaux, lawyer, and subsequently by: H. Mignard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to impose a disciplinary penalty consisting of a reprimand following a disciplinary enquiry and application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AQ to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 60.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7752 — ACE/Chubb) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, pension scheme, reinsurance








C_2015348EN.01000701.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7752 — ACE/Chubb)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 348/11)






1.


On 12 October 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 ACE Limited (‘ACE’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking The Chubb Corporation (‘Chubb’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


ACE is a global property and casualty insurance and reinsurance group headquartered in Switzerland providing life, non-life insurance and reinsurance to customers worldwide,










—


Chubb is a USA-headquartered provider of non-life insurance, reinsurance and ancillary services to customers worldwide.














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 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.7752 — ACE/Chubb, 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7651 — Bain Capital/Davigel Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2015348EN.01000101.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7651 — Bain Capital/Davigel Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 348/01)
On 14 October 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 French 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 32015M7651. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-78/15: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, consumer information, cosmetic product, interpretation of the law, labelling, optical industry








C_2016038EN.01004601.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/46





Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH
(Case C-78/15) (1)

(2016/C 038/58)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7729 — Willis Group/Towers Watson & Co.) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, holding company, insurance company, merger control, pension scheme, personnel administration








C_2015348EN.01000801.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7729 — Willis Group/Towers Watson & Co.)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 348/12)






1.


On 13 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Willis Group Holdings plc (‘Willis’, Ireland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the whole of Towers Watson & Co. (‘Towers Watson’, USA).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Willis: global provider of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting,
—   Towers Watson: global provider of consulting, technology and solutions in benefits, talent management and rewards, risk and financial services, and exchange solutions.










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.7729 — Willis Group/Towers Watson & Co., 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015348EN.01000201.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 October 2015
(2015/C 348/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1373




JPY


Japanese yen


136,16




DKK


Danish krone


7,4597




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73520




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4235




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0823




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2355




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,080




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,33




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2466




RON


Romanian leu


4,4252




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2882




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5612




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4788




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8141




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6664




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5791




KRW


South Korean won


1 283,93




ZAR


South African rand


15,0119




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2201




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6267




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 565,42




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8534




PHP


Philippine peso


52,741




RUB


Russian rouble


70,6090




THB


Thai baht


40,268




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3898




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7711




INR


Indian rupee


73,9899






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-89/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — Arsène v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Starting point — Disregarding of periods of duty in the service of an international organisation — Application by analogy of the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Usual residence outside the State of employment before performing duties in the service of an international organisation — Article 81 of the Staff Regulations — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, expatriate worker, interest, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015398EN.01007802.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/78





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — Arsène v Commission
(Case F-89/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Starting point - Disregarding of periods of duty in the service of an international organisation - Application by analogy of the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Usual residence outside the State of employment before performing duties in the service of an international organisation - Article 81 of the Staff Regulations - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2015/C 398/93)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Maria Lucia Arsène (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant the expatriation allowance and for an order that it pay that allowance, together with interest, from the date of the applicant’s entry into service.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Ms Arsène shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 62.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7709 — Bright Food Group/Invermik) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: confectionery, economic concentration, merger control, pastry-making, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2015348EN.01000102.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7709 — Bright Food Group/Invermik)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 348/02)
On 14 September 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 32015M7709. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Azores, Belgium, EU waters, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015348EN.01000502.xml










21.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/5





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 348/09)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


19.9.2015




Duration


19.9-31.12.2015




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


PLE/8/3411




Species


Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)




Zone


VIII, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


46/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-664/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PETCO — Earlier Community figurative mark PETCO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Plea which does not support the form of order sought — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015406EN.01002902.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/29






Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)
(Case T-664/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PETCO - Earlier Community figurative mark PETCO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Plea which does not support the form of order sought - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 406/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza (Málaga, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2013 (Case R 347/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza and Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
Case T-598/15: Action brought on 21 October 2015 — Stichting Accolade v Commission
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Friesland, Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, market prices, real property, sale








C_2015406EN.01004202.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/42






Action brought on 21 October 2015 — Stichting Accolade v Commission
(Case T-598/15)
(2015/C 406/44)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Stichting Accolade (Drachten, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Boer and J. Abma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2015, reference C(2015) 4411 final, State Aid SA.34676 (2015/NN) — The Netherlands (Alleged sale of land at below market price by the municipality of Harlingen);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly limited the applicant’s objection to a small section of the total land transaction between the municipality of Harlingen and Ludinga VG.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply, or wrongly applied, the private-investor test. The Commission, it is submitted, wrongly used a range of EUR 14 to EUR 24 in assessing the land transaction.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the information and assumptions underlying the prices which formed the range used by the Commission are incompatible with one another. As a result, the applicant contends, the transactions used as a reference are not comparable to the contested transaction.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that an erroneous price was applied to the range.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the alleged facts concerning the indirect advantages.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission drew an inaccurate conclusion with regard to the measure contested by the applicant.
Case C-548/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 October 2015 — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2015-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, school fees, tax relief, working conditions








C_2016038EN.01002102.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 October 2015 — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-548/15)
(2016/C 038/31)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J.J. de Lange

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to a concession contained in tax legislation on the basis of which study costs may, under certain conditions, be deducted from the taxable income?




In the event that the Court answers the first question referred in the negative:






2.


Must the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, as a general principle of EU law, be applied to a tax concession on the basis of which training expenditure is only deductible under certain circumstances, even when that concession falls outside the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC and when that arrangement does not implement EU law?




If the answer to the first or the second question referred is in the affirmative:






3.








(a)


Can differences in treatment which are contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age as a general principle of EU law be justified in a way provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC?










(b)


If not, what criteria apply to the application of that principle or to the justification of a distinction based on age?














4.








(a)


Should Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC and/or the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age be interpreted as justifying a difference in treatment on the grounds of age if the ground for that difference in treatment only relates to some of the cases affected by that distinction?










(b)


Can a distinction based on age be justified by the view of the legislator that beyond a certain age a tax concession need not be available because it is the ‘personal responsibility’ of the person claiming it to achieve the objective pursued by the concession?










(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.