do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-135/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, European official, competition (EU), professional experience, professional qualifications








C_2016007EN.01003702.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/37





Action brought on 23 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-135/15)
(2016/C 007/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Sahki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AST/130/14 not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage, on the ground that he did not have the required level of studies and professional experience of a minimum of six years related to the nature of the work.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision of 16 June 2014 [of] the President of the Competition selection board of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), following the application of 1 April 2014;










—


Annul the review decision of 4 December 2014 [of] the President of the EPSO competition selection board, following the request for review of 16 June 2014;










—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2015 rejecting the claim of 3 March 2015, R/10/15;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-822/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung v OHIM (Cottonfeel) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Cottonfeel — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01003102.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/31





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung v OHIM (Cottonfeel)
(Case T-822/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Cottonfeel - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung GmbH (Gerolstein-Müllenborn, Germany) (represented by: M. Straub, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 (Case R 2579/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Cottonfeel as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case T-552/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council (Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Out of time — Inadmissibility — Claim for damages — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2015414EN.01002501.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/25





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council
(Case T-552/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Out of time - Inadmissibility - Claim for damages - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 414/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was included in the list of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as being inadmissible;










2.


Orders Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Case C-311/15: Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, consumer credit, consumer protection, contract terms, credit institution, provision of services








C_2016038EN.01004602.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/46





Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi
(Case C-311/15) (1)

(2016/C 038/59)
Language of the case: Finnish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case C-551/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, notary








C_2016048EN.01000902.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn
(Case C-551/15)
(2016/C 048/16)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Puli-Pola

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pula Parking d.o.o.

Defendant: Sven Kalus Tederahn

Questions referred







1.


Taking into account the legal nature of the relationship between the parties to the proceedings, is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) applicable in the present case?










2.


Does Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 relate also to the jurisdiction of notaries in the Republic of Croatia?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7805 — Apollo Capital Management/RBH/LRG Finance) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015351EN.01002201.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/22





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7805 — Apollo Capital Management/RBH/LRG Finance)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 351/10)






1.


On 16 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 affiliates of Apollo Capital Management, LP (together ‘Apollo’, USA) and Redefine BDL Hotels UK Limited (‘RBH’, United Kingdom) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of LRG Finance Limited (‘LRG Group’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Apollo: investing in various businesses throughout the world including, inter alia, companies in the chemical, real estate, insurance, paper, and television production businesses,
—   for RBH: managing a portfolio of 70 hotels ranging from branded to private label hotel properties. RBH manages a variety of international hotel brands, including IHG, Hilton, Starwood, Accor, Marriott and Wyndham,
—   for LRG Group: operating a portfolio of hotels in the United Kingdom, including within London, around Heathrow and the M4 corridor, and in key regional cities (including Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham and Cardiff)










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.7805 — Apollo Capital Management/RBH/LRG Finance, 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.
Case T-137/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Representation of a circle) (Community trade mark — Revocation procedure — Figurative mark representing a circle — Genuine use of a mark — Extent of use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Shape which differs by elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01002901.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/29





Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Representation of a circle)
(Case T-137/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation procedure - Figurative mark representing a circle - Genuine use of a mark - Extent of use - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Shape which differs by elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark - Rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: I Castellani Srl (Meldola, Italy) (represented by: M. Caramelli, F. Boscariol de Roberto, I. Gatto and D. Martucci, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Compagnie Chomarat (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2013 (Case R 1001/2012-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Compagnie Chomarat and I Castellani Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders I Castellani Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015351EN.01000201.xml










23.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 October 2015
(2015/C 351/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1313




JPY


Japanese yen


135,49




DKK


Danish krone


7,4596




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73140




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4207




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0886




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2740




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,069




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,12




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2849




RON


Romanian leu


4,4300




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2683




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5692




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4847




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7677




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6704




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5744




KRW


South Korean won


1 284,93




ZAR


South African rand


15,3007




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1929




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6210




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 402,12




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8463




PHP


Philippine peso


52,643




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7525




THB


Thai baht


40,267




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4791




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7683




INR


Indian rupee


73,6774






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-552/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 — European Commission v Ireland
Date: 2015-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, hire purchase, registration tax, tax rebate, vehicle rental








C_2015414EN.01002302.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/23





Action brought on 23 October 2015 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-552/15)
(2015/C 414/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier, J. Tomkin, agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that by levying a full amount of registration tax upon the registration by an Irish resident of a motor vehicle leased or rented in another Member State, without taking account of the duration of the use, where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Ireland on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that way, and by setting conditions for a refund of this tax which go beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


order Ireland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments



The national legislation at issue


Ireland's Finance Act, 1992 (as amended) provides for the imposition of a tax on the registration of motor vehicles imported into the State. Pursuant to that Act, importers of vehicles are required to discharge, upon registration, the entire tax applicable for permanent registration. This requirement applies to all imported cars regardless of the intended and actual duration of their use in the State and includes cars that are hired or leased from abroad for pre-determined limited periods of time. While the Irish authorities have introduced the possibility to obtain a subsequent refund of excess tax paid, such a refund may only be granted following inspection and exportation of the vehicle at issue. There is no provision for interest to be paid on excess tax which had been retained and a EUR 500 fee is charged for the administration of the refund procedure.


Principal arguments


The Commission considers that Ireland's system for taxing the registration of motor vehicles imposes a disproportionate cash-flow and financial burden on Irish residents seeking to import hired or leased cars for pre-determined limited periods of time. In the Commission's view, the national rules at issue make it considerably more difficult and costly to hire and lease cars from other Member States than it is to hire or lease cars from undertakings established in Ireland. The Commission submits that Ireland's vehicle registration tax is liable to impede the provision and receipt of leasing and hiring services, is disproportionate, and therefore in breach of Article 56 TFEU.