do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-407/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Discriminatory dismissal — Article 18 — Compensation or reparation for the loss and damage actually sustained — Deterrent effect — Article 25 — Penalties — Punitive damages)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, gender equality, sexual discrimination, social policy, unfair dismissal








C_2016068EN.01001502.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/15





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA
(Case C-407/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Discriminatory dismissal - Article 18 - Compensation or reparation for the loss and damage actually sustained - Deterrent effect - Article 25 - Penalties - Punitive damages))
(2016/C 068/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho

Defendant: Securitas Seguridad España SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for the loss and damage sustained as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex to be the subject of genuine and effective compensation or reparation in a way which is dissuasive and proportionate, that article requires Member States which choose the financial form of compensation to introduce in their national legal systems, in accordance with detailed arrangements which they determine, measures providing for payment to the person injured of compensation which covers in full the loss and damage sustained.


(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Case C-342/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Article 5 — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Articles 16 and 17(6) — Article 56 TFEU — Tax consultancy company established in a Member State and providing services in another Member State — Legislation of a Member State requiring the registration and recognition of tax consultancy companies)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consultancy, freedom to provide services, recognition of vocational training qualifications, tax system








C_2016068EN.01001201.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/12





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord
(Case C-342/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 5 - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Articles 16 and 17(6) - Article 56 TFEU - Tax consultancy company established in a Member State and providing services in another Member State - Legislation of a Member State requiring the registration and recognition of tax consultancy companies))
(2016/C 068/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU, legislation of a Member State which defines the conditions of access to the activity of professional assistance in tax matters may not restrict the freedom to provide services of a tax consultancy company — formed in accordance with the law of another Member State in which that company is established, which draws up, in the latter Member State where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return on behalf of a recipient of services in the first Member State and sends that tax return to the tax authority of the first Member State —, without the qualification obtained by that company, or by the natural persons providing services of professional assistance in tax matters for that company, in other Member States being accorded its proper value and being duly taken into account.


(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-34/15)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Iceland, agricultural vehicle, atmospheric pollutant, environmental standard, infringement of EU law, motor vehicle pollution, national implementing measure, reduction of gas emissions, technical specification








C_2016216EN.01001201.xml










16.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/12





Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-34/15)
(2016/C 216/09)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 13 July 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 13 May 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, as referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Case T-379/14: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Universal Music v OHIM — Yello Strom (Yellow Lounge) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual industry, music, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016068EN.01002602.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/26





Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Universal Music v OHIM — Yello Strom (Yellow Lounge)
(Case T-379/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 068/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Universal Music GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhus, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: G. Schneider, and subsequently by: G. Schneider and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Yello Strom GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2014 (Case R 274/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Yello Strom GmbH and Universal Music GmbH.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.










2.


Universal Music GmbH and Yello Strom GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Case C-687/15: Action brought on 17 December 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: International Telecommunication Union, drafting of EU law, international meeting, telecommunications








C_2016068EN.01002401.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/24





Action brought on 17 December 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-687/15)
(2016/C 068/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, L. Nicolae, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul the Council Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted on 26 October 2015 at the 3419th meeting of the Council in Luxembourg;










—


order the Council to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


By way of the present application the Commission seeks the annulment of the ‘Council Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)’ adopted on 26 October 2015 at the 3419th meeting of the Council in Luxembourg.










2.


The Application is founded on a single plea in law namely that in adopting the Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) instead of a Decision as proposed by the Commission, the Council has violated Article 218(9) TFEU which applies to the adoption of the position to be taken on behalf of the Union at the WRC-15.










3.


In this regard, the Commission argues, first, that Article 218 (9) TFEU applies to positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in a situation as the one at hand where the European Union has a status in the international organisation concerned, namely that of a Sector member which, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the ITU Constitution, provides the European Union certain rights of activities in the organisation.










4.


Second, the Commission argues that the revisions of the Radio Regulations for which the Commission has proposed the adoption of a position to be taken in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU produce legal effects in the sense of that provision both under the applicable international legal framework and under the relevant Union rules.










5.


Third, as regards the other conditions for the application of Article 218(9) TFEU, the Commission argues that these are equally fulfilled in the present case as the organs of ITU are bodies ‘set up by an agreement’ and that the acts in relation to which the Commission has proposed the adoption of a position to be taken do not ‘[supplement] or [amend] the institutional framework of the agreement’.
Case T-275/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Choice of second language from three languages — Language of communication with the candidates to the competition — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27, first paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, linguistic discrimination, macroeconomics, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), use of languages








C_2016059EN.01001302.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/13





Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-275/13) (1)

((Languages - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Choice of second language from three languages - Language of communication with the candidates to the competition - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27, first paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))
(2016/C 059/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall, B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogado del Estado)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and B. Beutler, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists for administrations to fill vacant posts in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics (OJ 2013 C 75 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists for administrations to fill vacant posts in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics;










2)


Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Italian Republic;










3)


Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs relating to their interventions.






(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case T-624/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark bice — Ealier national figurative mark 1926 BiCE RISTORANTE — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016059EN.01001701.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/17





Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice)
(Case T-624/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark bice - Ealier national figurative mark 1926 BiCE RISTORANTE - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 059/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bice International Ltd (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented initially by N. Gibb, Solicitor, and D. McFarland, Barrister, and subsequently by D. McFarland)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bice AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Pauli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2014 (Case R 1249/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bice International Ltd and Bice AG.

Operative part of the judgment







1)


The action is dismissed.










2)


Bice International Ltd shall bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2391 of 17 December 2015 determining the quantities to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2016 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 in the egg sector and for egg albumin
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, egg, import (EU), import licence, protein products, tariff quota








L_2015332EN.01012401.xml










18.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 332/124








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/2391
of 17 December 2015
         
determining the quantities to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2016 under the tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 in the egg sector and for egg albumin


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 188(2) and (3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 (2) opened annual tariff quotas for imports of egg products and egg albumin.












(2)


The quantities covered by the applications for import licences lodged from 1 to 7 December 2015 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2016 are less than those available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod.












(3)


In order to ensure the efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The quantities for which import licence applications have not been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 539/2007, to be added to the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2016, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 17 December 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 539/2007 of 15 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 19).




ANNEX






Order No


Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantities available for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2016
(in kg, shell egg equivalent)




09.4015


108 000 000 




09.4401


2 690 000 




09.4402


9 666 000
Case T-729/15: Action brought on 17 December 2015 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, disclosure of information, market approval, provision of documents, trade information, veterinary drug








C_2016059EN.01004102.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/41





Action brought on 17 December 2015 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA
(Case T-729/15)
(2016/C 059/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH (Schwabenheim, Germany) and Intervet international BV (Boxmeer, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Stratford, QC, C. Thomas, Barrister, P. Bogaert, lawyer, B. Kelly and H. Billson, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of EMA of 25 November 2015, communicated to the applicants the 3 December 2015, to grant a third party access to the information about a veterinary medicinal product, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), in so far as the decision concerns commercially confidential information the release of which will infringe the applicants' rights and in so far as the decision is prohibited by EU law;










—


order the EMA to pay all costs in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the documents at issue is protected by Article 4(2) and/or Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 pursuant to a general presumption of confidentiality.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the documents at issue in their entirety constitute commercially confidential information that is protected by Article 4(2) of said Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the release of the documents would undermine the EMA's decision making process.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EMA failed to carry out a balancing exercise as required by law.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the outcome of a proper balancing exercise, as required by law, would have been a decision not to release any part of the documents or at least a decision to accede to the redactions proposed by the applicants.