do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-53/15 P to C-56/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (C-53/15 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA, (C-54/15 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, (C-55/15 P), Global Steel Wire SA (C-56/15 P) v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — European prestressing steel market — Commission decision adjusting the amount of the fines imposed on certain undertakings and fixing a new period for the payment of those fines — Other undertakings whose fines remained unchanged having no interest in bringing proceedings — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, deadline for payment, fine, price agreement, steel








C_2016078EN.01000301.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/3





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (C-53/15 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA, (C-54/15 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, (C-55/15 P), Global Steel Wire SA (C-56/15 P) v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-53/15 P to C-56/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Competition - European prestressing steel market - Commission decision adjusting the amount of the fines imposed on certain undertakings and fixing a new period for the payment of those fines - Other undertakings whose fines remained unchanged having no interest in bringing proceedings - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 078/03)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (C-53/15 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA, (C-54/15 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, (C-55/15 P), Global Steel Wire SA (C-56/15 P) (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:






1.


The appeals are dismissed.










2.


Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA, Trefilerías Quijano SA, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL and Global Steel Wire SA shall pay the costs of the proceedings in cases C-53/15 P, C-54/15 P, C-55/15 P and C-56/15 P respectively.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015
Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein (Case E-32/15)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European driving licence, European standard, Liechtenstein, driving instruction, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, technical standard, transport regulations, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle








C_2016216EN.01001001.xml










16.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/10





Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
(Case E-32/15)
(2016/C 216/07)
An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, 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 the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at point 24f of Annex VIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area:






—


Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, and










—


Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences,










—


Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences,




as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.










2.


Order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of these proceedings.





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







—


The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 24 August 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 24 June 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, as well as
Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, and
Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, as referred to at point 24f of Annex VIII 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 Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed.
Case F-147/15: Action brought on 17 December 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, termination of employment, work contract








C_2016068EN.01004601.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/46





Action brought on 17 December 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-147/15)
(2016/C 068/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the contested decision dated 24 February 2015;










—


so far as necessary, annul the rejection decision dated 9 September 2015;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.
Case C-300/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Conditions for certification — Rights of the debtor — Review of the judgment)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, national law








C_2016068EN.01000902.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/9





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA
(Case C-300/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Conditions for certification - Rights of the debtor - Review of the judgment))
(2016/C 068/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Imtech Marine Belgium NV

Defendant: Radio Hellenic SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, read in the light of Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to establish in their national law a review procedure such as that referred to in Article 19 of that regulation.










2.


Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to certify a judgment delivered in absentia as a European Enforcement Order, the court ruling on such an application must satisfy itself that its national law effectively and without exception allows for a full review, in law and in fact, of such a judgment in the two situations referred to in that provision and that it allows the periods for challenging a judgment on an uncontested claim to be extended, not only in the event of force majeure, but also where other extraordinary circumstances beyond the debtor’s control prevented him from contesting the claim in question.










3.


Article 6 of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order, which may be applied for at any time, can be carried out only by a judge.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case C-679/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs fraud, customs territory (EU), import (EU), legal person, natural person, wage earner








C_2016111EN.01000501.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
(Case C-679/15)
(2016/C 111/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ultra-Brag AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Questions referred







1.


Is the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, ‘the CC’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person becomes a customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3) of the CC as the person who introduced goods if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, brought about the unlawful introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative:
Is the second indent of Article 202(3) of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that






a)


a legal person participates in an unlawful introduction (even) if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, was involved in that introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility, and










b)


in the case of legal persons who participate in an unlawful introduction, the subjective element that they ‘were aware or should reasonably have been aware’ is to be determined by reference to the natural person in the legal person’s undertaking to whom the matter is entrusted, even if he is not the statutory representative of the legal person?














3.


If the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative:
Is Article 212a of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that whether the conduct of a participant involves fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence is to be determined, in the case of a legal person, solely by reference to the conduct of the legal person or its organs, or is the conduct of a natural person employed by it and entrusted with the task within the scope of his responsibility to be attributed to it?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
Case T-357/15 P: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Garcia Minguez v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Recruitment — Commission internal competition open to the institution’s temporary staff — Non-admission to a member of the temporary staff of an executive agency — Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment — Appeal manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment








C_2016068EN.01002802.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/28





Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Garcia Minguez v Commission
(Case T-357/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Recruitment - Commission internal competition open to the institution’s temporary staff - Non-admission to a member of the temporary staff of an executive agency - Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Appeal manifestly devoid of any basis in law))
(2016/C 068/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, and subsquently by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2015 in Garcia Minguez v Commission (F-72/14, ECR-SC, EU:F:2015:40), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Ms Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7887 — Goldman Sachs/Astorg Asset Management/HRA Pharma) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2015421EN.01002601.xml










17.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/26





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7887 — Goldman Sachs/Astorg Asset Management/HRA Pharma)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 421/11)






1.


On 9 December 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 Astorg Asset Management Sàrl. acting on behalf of Astorg VI (‘Astorg’, Luxembourg) and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, United States) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control over Laboratoire HRA Pharma SAS and its subsidiaries (‘HRA Pharma’, France), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Astorg is a private equity investment firm,










—


Goldman Sachs is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm,










—


HRA Pharma is a French pharmaceutical company that develops and sells pharmaceutical products and devices in women health and endocrinology sectors.














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 M.7887 — Goldman Sachs/Astorg Asset Management/HRA Pharma, 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 C-239/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Abdoulaye Amadou Tall v Centre public d’action sociale de Huy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2005/85/EC — Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Article 39 — Right to an effective remedy — Multiple asylum claims — Non-suspensory effect of an appeal against a decision of the competent national authority not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum — Social protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 19(2) — Article 47)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, appeal, area of freedom, security and justice, refugee, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2016068EN.01000602.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Abdoulaye Amadou Tall v Centre public d’action sociale de Huy
(Case C-239/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Article 39 - Right to an effective remedy - Multiple asylum claims - Non-suspensory effect of an appeal against a decision of the competent national authority not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum - Social protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 19(2) - Article 47))
(2016/C 068/08)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Abdoulaye Amadou Tall

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Huy

Intervener: Agence fédérale pour l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not confer suspensory effect on an appeal brought against a decision, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum.


(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015421EN.01000901.xml










17.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 December 2015
(2015/C 421/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0933




JPY


Japanese yen


133,18




DKK


Danish krone


7,4617




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72830




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2991




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0824




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5555




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,030




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,41




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3186




RON


Romanian leu


4,5035




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2416




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5186




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5050




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4732




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6196




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5407




KRW


South Korean won


1 285,09




ZAR


South African rand


16,4708




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0726




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6425




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 293,02




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7045




PHP


Philippine peso


51,754




RUB


Russian rouble


76,8689




THB


Thai baht


39,431




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3042




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7228




INR


Indian rupee


72,9350






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-736/15: Action brought on 17 December 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Sky (SKYLITE)
Date: 2015-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leather, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01002002.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/20





Action brought on 17 December 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Sky (SKYLITE)
(Case T-736/15)
(2016/C 090/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘SKYLITE’ — Application for registration No 11 595 311

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2015 in Case R 2771/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


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