do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission (State aid — Mining sector — Aid granted by the Greek authorities to the mining company Ellinikos Chrysos — Contract for the transfer of a mining operation at a price below the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction — Decision declaring the aid measures unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid — Concept of advantage — Private investor test)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, mining industry, principle of proportionality, tax exemption, transfer of property








C_2016038EN.01004701.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/47





Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission
(Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11) (1)

((State aid - Mining sector - Aid granted by the Greek authorities to the mining company Ellinikos Chrysos - Contract for the transfer of a mining operation at a price below the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction - Decision declaring the aid measures unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid - Concept of advantage - Private investor test))
(2016/C 038/60)
Languages of the case: Greek and English

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, V. Asimakopoulos, G. Kanellopoulos and A. Iosifidou, acting as Agents) (Case T-233/11); and Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (Kifissia, Greece) (represented initially by K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, E. Trova and P. Skouris, and subsequently by K. Adamantopoulos, E. Trova, P. Skouris and E. Roussou, lawyers) (Case T-262/11)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos AE (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Joins Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11 for the purposes of the judgment;










2.


Dismisses the actions;










3.


In Case T-233/11, orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










4.


In Case T-262/11, orders Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.






(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
Case C-659/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Robert Caldararu
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, carrying out of sentence, detention before trial, human rights, prison system








C_2016059EN.01000901.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Robert Caldararu
(Case C-659/15)
(2016/C 059/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Robert Caldararu

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(3) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) (2002/584/JHA) to be interpreted as meaning that extradition for the purposes of prosecution is impermissible where there are strong indications that detention conditions in the issuing Member State infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned and the fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, or is it to be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances, the executing Member State can or must make the decision on the permissibility of extradition conditional upon an assurance that detention conditions are compliant? To that end, can or must the executing Member State lay down specific minimum requirements applicable to the detention conditions in respect of which an assurance is sought?










2.


Are Articles 5 and 6(1) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) to be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority is also entitled to give assurances that detention conditions are compliant, or do assurances in this regard remain subject to the domestic rules of competence in the issuing Member State?






(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.
Case F-45/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Member of the temporary staff — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: job access, servant (EU), work contract








C_2016048EN.01010101.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/101





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol
(Case F-45/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Europol staff - Member of the temporary staff - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly inadmissible))
(2016/C 048/117)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mark Van der Veen (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann, J. Arnould and C. Falmagne, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s implied decision not to follow up the applicant’s request for a contract for an indefinite period.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Mr Van der Veen shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.






(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 34.
Case T-354/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ZUMEX — Earlier national figurative mark JUMEX — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01004902.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/49





Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex)
(Case T-354/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ZUMEX - Earlier national figurative mark JUMEX - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 038/64)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain) (represented by: M.C. March Cabrelles, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2014 (Case R 391/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Comercializadora Eloro, SA and Zumex Group, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Comercializadora Eloro, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7529 — Mohawk Industries/International Flooring Systems) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, merger control, processing industry








C_2015408EN.01000101.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7529 — Mohawk Industries/International Flooring Systems)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 408/01)
On 11 June 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 language 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 32015M7529. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/2413 of 9 December 2015 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (EUPOL Afghanistan/2/2015)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Afghanistan, EU police mission, appointment of members, police cooperation








L_2015333EN.01011801.xml










19.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 333/118








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2015/2413
of 9 December 2015
         
extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (EUPOL Afghanistan/2/2015)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (1) and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL Afghanistan mission, including, in particular, the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 17 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/922/CFSP (2) extending the duration of EUPOL Afghanistan until 31 December 2016.












(3)


On 10 February 2015, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/247 (3), appointing Ms Pia STJERNVALL as Head of Mission of EUPOL Afghanistan from 16 February 2015 to 31 December 2015.












(4)


The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Ms Pia STJERNVALL as Head of Mission of EUPOL Afghanistan, from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Ms Pia STJERNVALL as Head of Mission of EUPOL Afghanistan is hereby extended until 31 December 2016.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 1 January 2016.




Done at Brussels, 9 December 2015.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

W. STEVENS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 123, 19.5.2010, p. 4.

(2)  Council Decision 2014/922/CFSP of 17 December 2014 amending and extending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (OJ L 363, 18.12.2014, p. 152).

(3)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/247 of 10 February 2015 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN/1/2015) (OJ L 41, 17.2.2015, p. 24).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7832 — Gunvor Group/Kuwait Petroleum Europoort) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, merger control, oil industry








C_2015408EN.01000202.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7832 — Gunvor Group/Kuwait Petroleum Europoort)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 408/04)
On 2 December 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 language 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 32015M7832. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-595/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(6) — Special investment funds — Meaning — Investments in immovable property — Management of special investment funds — Meaning — Actual management of a property)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, investment company, real property, tax exemption








C_2016048EN.01000201.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs
(Case C-595/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(6) - Special investment funds - Meaning - Investments in immovable property - Management of special investment funds - Meaning - Actual management of a property))
(2016/C 048/02)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Fiscale Eenheid X NV cs

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that investment companies such as the companies at issue in the main proceedings, in which capital is pooled by several investors who bear the risk connected with the management of the assets assembled in those companies with a view to purchasing, owning, managing and selling immovable property in order to derive a profit therefrom which will be distributed to all unit-holders in the form of a dividend, those unit-holders benefiting also from an increase in the value of their holding, may be regarded as ‘special investment funds’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the Member State concerned has made those companies subject to specific State supervision.










2.


Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management’ which appears in that provision does not cover the actual management of the immovable property of a special investment fund.






(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
Case T-335/13: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — BT Limited Belgian Branch v Commission
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, information technology applications, invitation to tender








C_2016078EN.01003501.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/35





Order of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — BT Limited Belgian Branch v Commission
(Case T-335/13) (1)

(2016/C 078/48)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.
Information on the date of signature of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Denmark, Greenland, catch quota, financial compensation of an agreement, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing permit, fishing rights, protocol to an agreement, sea fishing








L_2015323EN.01000101.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 323/1







Information on the date of signature of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand

On 27 November 2015 the European Union and Denmark and Greenland signed the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement.
The Protocol accordingly applies provisionally from 1 January 2016 pursuant to Article 14 thereof.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dairy industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2015408EN.01000102.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/1





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 408/02)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 5 November 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between DMK and DOC Kaas. On 1 December 2015, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2294 of 9 December 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the establishment of a new functional group of feed additives (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal health, animal nutrition, chemical compound, food additive, food inspection, health control, microorganism








L_2015324EN.01000301.xml










10.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 324/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/2294
of 9 December 2015
         
amending Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the establishment of a new functional group of feed additives
(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the allocation of feed additives to categories and further to functional groups within those categories according to their functions and properties.












(2)


As a result of technological and scientific development, some feed additives may improve the hygienic condition of a feed, in particular by reducing a specific microbiological contamination and thereby mitigating the possible adverse effects of microorganisms on animal health.












(3)


In addition to the implementation of the hygienic requirements and good practices along the feed chain, operators may need in specific cases to use hygienic condition enhancers in order to improve the quality of feed for animal nutrition providing additional guarantees for the protection of animal and public health. Since such feed additives cannot be allocated to any of the functional groups provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, it is necessary to add a new functional group in the category ‘technological additives’.












(4)


Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In point 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, the following point (n) is added:
‘(n)   hygiene condition enhancers: substances or, when applicable, microorganisms which favourably affect the hygienic characteristics of feed by reducing a specific microbiological contamination.’


Article 2

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 December 2015.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 268 18.10.2003, p. 29.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7677 — OBI/BauMax Certain Assets) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hand tool, household article, ironmongery, merger control, retail trade








C_2015408EN.01000301.xml










9.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7677 — OBI/BauMax Certain Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 408/05)
On 22 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 German 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 32015M7677. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.