do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-150/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — ZZ v EIB
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, access to information, damages, dismissal, electronic mail, indemnification, pay, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016383EN.01003002.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/30





Action brought on 22 December 2015 — ZZ v EIB
(Case F-150/15)
(2016/C 383/40)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decisions of the EIB pronouncing the ‘dispensation from service’ of the applicant and other decisions connected with that decision, and application for compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the defendant’s decisions of 13 April 2015, 12 May 2015, 16 June 2015 and 20 October 2015 pronouncing the ‘dispensation from service’ of the applicant;










—


Annul the defendant’s decision of 18 June 2015 to block the applicant’s access to his e-mail and to IT connections;










—


Annul the defendant’s decision not to give the applicant access to his salary slips and to remove him from the list of members of his staff;










—


Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 950 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions and because of its failures in its duty of care and its infringements of procedural safeguards, which sum is to be paid together with interest;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case T-757/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Facebook v OHIM — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, legal aid, provision of services, registered trade mark, security services, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016068EN.01004101.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/41





Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Facebook v OHIM — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)
(Case T-757/15)
(2016/C 068/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Facebook, Inc. (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brand IP Licensing Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘lovebook’ — Community trade mark application No 9 926 577

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2015 in Case R 2028/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division which upheld the opposition against the CTM application No 9 926 577 LOVEBOOK on the basis of likelihood of confusion, based in its conclusions that the similarities of the signs are minor in relation to their differences, that the overall impression of the signs in the perception of the relevant public is that they are not similar, and that this is so, even if the earlier trademarks enjoy enhanced distinctiveness;










—


order reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-750/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy law, renewable energy, self-supply








C_2016059EN.01004701.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/47





Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission
(Case T-750/15)
(2016/C 059/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), RWE Power AG (Essen, Germany), Vattenfall Europe Mining AG (Cottbus, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, K. Dingemann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2014) 5081 final of 23 July 2014 in the case State aid SA. 38632 (2014/N) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — EEG 2014 — Reform of the Renewable Energy Law, in so far as it classified the regime for existing installations relating to self-sufficiency in Article 61(3) and (4) of the EEG 2014 as State aid and declared it in the second indent of point 5 (p. 75) to be compatible with the internal market only until 31 December 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a lack of selective favouring of certain undertakings
By their first plea in law, the applicants claim that the contested decision wrongly defines the regime for existing installations relating to self-sufficiency in electricity (Art. 61(3) and (4) EEG 2014) as selective measures and therefore as State aid.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a lack of State resources
By their second plea in law, the applicants claim that the support for renewable energy financed by the EEG-surcharge is not received from State funds, but rather from private funds. Neither the collection nor the use of the EEG-surcharge takes place under the control of the State, as is required by the case-law. Moreover, the regime at issue is not a burden on the State treasury, since the entire amount of the EEG-surcharge is not reduced by the fact that the provision of self-sufficiency by means of existing installations is exempt from surcharges.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7803 — MSI/Amlin) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, insurance company, merger control, reinsurance








C_2015430EN.01000101.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7803 — MSI/Amlin)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 430/01)
On 15 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 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 32015M7803. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015430EN.01000601.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 December 2015
(2015/C 430/08)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0870




JPY


Japanese yen


131,93




DKK


Danish krone


7,4610




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72985




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2930




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0804




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5585




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,028




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,15




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2402




RON


Romanian leu


4,5115




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1643




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5168




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5169




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4247




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6114




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5307




KRW


South Korean won


1 280,05




ZAR


South African rand


16,4115




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0457




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6505




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 015,75




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6679




PHP


Philippine peso


51,388




RUB


Russian rouble


77,4488




THB


Thai baht


39,262




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3219




MXN


Mexican peso


18,6067




INR


Indian rupee


72,0850






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.7566 — Mondi/Walki Assets) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food processing, merger control, packaging, plastics industry, pulp and paper industry








C_2015430EN.01000301.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/3





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.7566 — Mondi/Walki Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 430/05)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 29 July 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between Mondi and Walki. On 15 December 2015, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.
Case T-752/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, consultancy, damages, information technology profession, tendering








C_2016068EN.01004001.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/40





Action brought on 22 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case T-752/15)
(2016/C 068/51)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C. Dede)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of which they were notified by letter of 29 October 2015 under reference DIGIT/R/3/SDP/PT 5107460 (2015), by which the Commission ranked in sixth place the applicants’ tender for one of the three individual lots, specifically Lot 3, in the context of the open procurement procedure under No DIGIT/R3/PO/2015/0008 entitled ‘Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV)’;










—


order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered by them in respect of the opportunity which they lost to be ranked in first place for Lot 3 of the framework agreement STIS IV;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs of the applicants.





Pleas for annulment and main arguments

According to the applicants, the contested decision must be annulled as it provided a defective statement of reasons: (i) as regards the appraisal of the applicants’ technical offer, (ii) as regards the reasons for which the financial offers of the successful companies and consortia were not considered abnormally low, and on account of infringement by the Commission of the contractual documents and EU law in relation to the existence of manifest errors of assessment.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7826 — Bertelsmann/Prinovis) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2015430EN.01000202.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7826 — Bertelsmann/Prinovis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 430/04)
On 11 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 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 32015M7826. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-758/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF Toruń v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: VAT, abuse of power, administrative formalities, equal treatment, medium-sized business, payment, principle of proportionality, small business, tax exemption








C_2016068EN.01004201.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/42





Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF Toruń v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
(Case T-758/15)
(2016/C 068/53)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: EDF Toruń SA (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: K. Sienkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision No SME(2015)4950 of 3 November 2015 issued by the European Chemicals Agency, and VAT invoice No 10054011 of 3 November 2015, relating to the charging of an administrative fee for the incorrect indication of the undertaking’s size when making a notification to the REACH register;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, relating to a lack of binding force of the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC) and to the need to apply national provisions in this regard;










2.


Second plea, relating to infringement of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008, (1) given the fact that the agency is not entitled to impose financial penalties on entities making a notification to the REACH register;










3.


Third plea, relating to infringement of the principle of proportionality through the charging of an administrative fee whose amount is excessively high in relation to the work required to determine the correct value for the undertaking;










4.


Fourth plea, relating to misuse of powers through the charging of a fee on the basis of Decision 14/2015 of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency when that decision does not have binding force;










5.


Fifth plea, relating to infringement of the principle of equality by setting the amount of administrative fees on the basis of the size of the entity which is to be charged the fee, when there are no arguments at all supporting the correctness of such a solution.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7856 — Thoma Bravo/Silver Lake Group/SolarWinds) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015430EN.01000102.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7856 — Thoma Bravo/Silver Lake Group/SolarWinds)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 430/02)
On 15 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 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 32015M7856. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-745/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — FH Scorpio v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YO!)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016059EN.01004501.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/45





Action brought on 22 December 2015 — FH Scorpio v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YO!)
(Case T-745/15)
(2016/C 059/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: FH Scorpio (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the contested mark: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘YO!’ — Application for registration No 11 208 436

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2015 in Case R 1546/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action well founded;










—


annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns registration of the mark ‘YO!’ 011208436;










—


alter the contested decision in such a way that the mark may be registered for all goods and services claimed;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Annual Report 2014
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: European Ombudsman
Subjects: European Ombudsman, activity report, exchange of information








C_2015430EN.01000701.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/7





Annual Report 2014
(2015/C 430/09)
On 26 May 2015, the European Ombudsman presented her Annual Report for the year 2014 to the President of the European Parliament.
The Annual Report is available on the European Ombudsman’s website in all 24 official languages at: www.ombudsman.europa.eu/redirect?id=ar/2014&lang=en
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7510 — Olam/ADM Cocoa Business) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agro-industry, economic concentration, food processing, international trade, merger control








C_2015430EN.01000201.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 430/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7510 — Olam/ADM Cocoa Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 430/03)
On 10 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 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 32015M7510. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.