do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-595/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Replacement of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings — Purpose of the action — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures — Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — Consultation of the European Parliament)
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, drug traffic, health control, health risk, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, psychotropic substance








C_2016068EN.01001801.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/18





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-595/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Replacement of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings - Purpose of the action - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Consultation of the European Parliament))
(2016/C 068/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures;










2.


Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688 be maintained in force;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-695/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 December 2015 — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, aid to refugees, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2016090EN.01001001.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 December 2015 — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
(Case C-695/15)
(2016/C 090/13)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Shiraz Baig Mirza

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) (‘the Dublin III Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that






(a)


Member States may exercise the right to send an applicant to a safe third country only before determining the Member State responsible or that they may also exercise that right after making that determination?










(b)


Is the answer to the preceding question different if the Member State establishes that it is the State responsible not at the time when the application is first lodged with its authorities in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and Chapter III of that regulation but when it receives the applicant from another Member State following a transfer or take back request pursuant to Chapters V and VI of the Dublin III Regulation?














2.


If, on the basis of the interpretation given by the Court in response to the first question, the right to send an applicant to a safe third country may also be exercised after a transfer carried out pursuant to the Dublin procedure:
Can Article 3(3) of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as meaning that Member States may also exercise that right if, in the course of the Dublin procedure, the Member State carrying out the transfer has not been informed of the precise national rules governing the exercise of that right or of the practice applied by the national authorities?










3.


Can Article 18(2) of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an applicant who has been taken back pursuant to Article 18[(1)](c) of that regulation, the procedure must be continued at the stage where it was discontinued during the preceding procedure?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7762 — ArcelorMittal/Financial Entities/Grupo Condesa) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, holding company, iron and steel industry, merger control








C_2015433EN.01000301.xml










23.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7762 — ArcelorMittal/Financial Entities/Grupo Condesa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 433/03)






1.


On 16 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 ArcelorMittal Aceralia Basque Holding, SL (Spain), belonging to ArcelorMittal Group (‘ArcelorMittal’), and the ‘Financial entities’ (2), (Spain) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Bagoeta SL (‘Bagoeta’, Spain) and part of its subsidiary companies integrating Condesa Group: Condesa Central de Compras, SLU (Spain), Condesa Fabril, SAU (Spain), Condesa Fabril Promotora, SLU (Spain), Conducciones y Derivados, SLU (Spain), Holding de Gestión de Empresas de Tubo, SLU (Spain), Mecanizados de Zalaín, SL (Spain), Perfiles de Precisión, SLU (Spain), Larreder, SLU (Spain), Profilmetal Sarl d’Associe Unique (Morocco), Derivados del Acero Tracero, SAU (Spain), Tubos de Celrá SA (Spain), Zalain Transformados, SL (Spain), Schwarzwälder Röhrenwerke (Germany) and Lorraine Tubes SAS (France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ArcelorMittal: mining, manufacturing and distribution of various steel products at global level;
—   for the Financial Entities: banking and financial services;
—   for Bagoeta: manufacturing of different types of small welded carbon steel tubes.










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.










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.7762 — ArcelorMittal/Financial Entities/Grupo Condesa, 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)  Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Santander SA, Banco Popular Español SA, Bankia SA, Caixabank SA, Bankinter SA, Caja Rural de Navarra Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito and Kutxabank, SA.
Case C-58/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Health inspections — Official feed and food controls — Financing of controls — Inspection costs relating to slaughter — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Directive 85/73/EEC — Possibility of levying fees covering the actual cost of inspection, exceeding the fees set by that directive)
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, food hygiene, food inspection, health control, meat, payment, slaughter of animals, veterinary inspection








C_2016068EN.01001901.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/19





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart
(Case C-58/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Health inspections - Official feed and food controls - Financing of controls - Inspection costs relating to slaughter - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Directive 85/73/EEC - Possibility of levying fees covering the actual cost of inspection, exceeding the fees set by that directive))
(2016/C 068/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Firma Theodor Pfister

Defendant: Landkreis Main-Spessart

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as authorising, for the transitional period of 2007, the levying of fees for the costs occasioned by inspections and controls relating to meat hygiene so as to cover the costs incurred by the competent authority, in accordance with Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997.


(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case F-151/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, survivor's benefit








C_2016059EN.01005202.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/52





Action brought on 23 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-151/15)
(2016/C 059/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 13 or 14 April 2015 refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension;










—


So far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 15 June 2015;










—


Order the payment of compensation in respect of material harm suffered by the applicant;










—


Order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 5 000;










—


Order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015433EN.01000201.xml










23.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 December 2015
(2015/C 433/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0952




JPY


Japanese yen


132,42




DKK


Danish krone


7,4615




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73620




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2620




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0818




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5430




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,028




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,97




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2377




RON


Romanian leu


4,5192




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2280




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5109




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5242




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4913




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6036




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5379




KRW


South Korean won


1 283,30




ZAR


South African rand


16,5748




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,0933




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6560




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 963,04




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7093




PHP


Philippine peso


51,789




RUB


Russian rouble


77,8588




THB


Thai baht


39,504




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3619




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7405




INR


Indian rupee


72,5474






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7797 — Michelin/Fives/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, mechanical engineering, merger control, rubber industry








C_2015433EN.01000101.xml










23.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7797 — Michelin/Fives/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 433/01)
On 16 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 32015M7797. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-293/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Gebhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope ratione materiae — Activities which are connected with the exercise of official authority — The trade of chimney sweep — Fire safety regulation tasks — Territorial restriction of the licence to trade — Service of general economic interest — Necessity — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fire protection, freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality, provision of services, services of general interest, trade licence








C_2016068EN.01000801.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/8





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Gebhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer
(Case C-293/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope ratione materiae - Activities which are connected with the exercise of official authority - The trade of chimney sweep - Fire safety regulation tasks - Territorial restriction of the licence to trade - Service of general economic interest - Necessity - Proportionality))
(2016/C 068/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gebhart Hiebler

Defendant: Walter Schlagbauer

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as covering, in all respects, the pursuit of a trade, such as the trade of chimney sweep as described in the main proceedings, even though that trade entails the performance not only of private economic activities but also of fire safety regulation tasks.










2.


Articles 10(4) and 15(1), (2)(a) and (3) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits, in all respects, a license to trade as a chimney sweep to a particular geographical area, if that legislation does not seek to attain, in a consistent and systematic manner, the objective of public health protection, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.
Article 15(4) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation where fire safety regulation tasks are classified as tasks connected with a service of general economic interest, provided that the territorial restriction imposed is necessary and proportionate to the performance of those tasks under economically viable conditions. It is for the national court to carry out that assessment.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case C-696/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2015 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 –Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, delegated legislation, exchange of information, intelligent transport system, principle of legal certainty, provision of services, road safety, road traffic








C_2016078EN.01000801.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/8





Appeal brought on 23 December 2015 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 –Czech Republic v Commission
(Case C-696/15 P)
(2016/C 078/09)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside the judgment under appeal,










—


annul Regulation No 885/2013 (1) and Regulation No 886/2013 (2) in their entirety, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.




In the alternative:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal,










—


annul Articles 3(1), 8 and 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 885/2013 and Articles 5(1), 9 and 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 886/2013, and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal.
First ground of appeal: breach of the principle of legal certainty. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that the obligations under Regulation No 885/2013 and Regulation No 886/2013 do not apply to a Member State which has not yet decided to deploy in its territory the applications and services of intelligent transport systems, even though that conclusion does not follow from those regulations.
Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that, when the Commission adopts acts under delegated powers, it has a wide enough discretion for it not to have to remain within the bounds of the specific delegating provisions.
Third ground of appeal: procedural errors before the General Court. In the judgment under appeal the General Court badly distorted several arguments put forward by the Czech Republic, and there were some arguments of the Czech Republic which it did not address at all. Those procedural errors had a fundamental effect on the General Court’s assessment of the pleas in law.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6.
Case T-773/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
Date: 2015-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electronic equipment, maintenance, registered trade mark, retail trade, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01003101.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/31





Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
(Case T-773/15)
(2016/C 078/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY’ — Application for registration No 6 065 403

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases R 733/2015-2 and R 780/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 8 October 2015 in Case R-0780/2015-2 to the extent that it upheld the opposition;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 23 February 2015 in Opposition No. B 1312208 to the extent that it upheld the opposition;










—


accept the CTM Application No 006065403 for registration;










—


order the Defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant.





Pleas in law







—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;










—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;










—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity or similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks; and










—


The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier marks and the Applicant’s Mark.