do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-486/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 –Stavytskyi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, civil servant, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2016098EN.01003902.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/39





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 –Stavytskyi v Council
(Case T-486/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified))
(2016/C 098/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, and by P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and M. Gambardella, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Edward Stavytskyi;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Stavytskyi.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-507/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission (State aid — Manufacture of leisure equipment — Restructuring aid — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Obligation to state reasons — Whether imputable to the State — Private investor test)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid for restructuring, control of State aid, leisure, pleasure craft, reimbursement of aid, sports equipment








C_2016098EN.01002702.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/27





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
(Case T-507/12) (1)

((State aid - Manufacture of leisure equipment - Restructuring aid - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Whether imputable to the State - Private investor test))
(2016/C 098/35)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and A. Grum, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Kocjan and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents, assisted initially by M. Ulčar and M. Ménard, and subsequently by M. Ménard, P. Božičko and A. Krošel, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/273/EU of 19 September 2012 on the measures SA.26379 (C 13/10) (ex NN 17/10) implemented by Slovenia in favour of Elan d.o.o. (OJ 2014 L 144, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
Case T-38/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — EEB v Commission
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, access to information, environmental policy, provision of documents, right to information








C_2016118EN.01003401.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/34





Action brought on 28 January 2016 — EEB v Commission
(Case T-38/16)
(2016/C 118/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November 2015 with reference Ares(2015)5212500 confirming its decision of 14 September 2015 with reference Ares(2015)3790389 in which the Commission took an additional decision on the request for information of 3 February 2015, submitted by the EEB; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error as to the determination of the subject-matter of the initial application and, consecutively, infringement of the Commission’s obligation to give the said application a full examination and infringement of the Articles 6(2), 7 and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons.
Joined Cases C-283/14 and C-284/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 — Validity — Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China — Effect to be given to a judgment having found a preceding regulation to be invalid — Reopening of the initial investigation to determine the normal value — Reimposition of the anti-dumping duty on the basis of the same data — Investigation period to be taken into account)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, citrus fruit, fruit product, import (EU), originating product, preserved product








C_2016106EN.01000401.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/4





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)
(Joined Cases C-283/14 and C-284/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 - Validity - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Effect to be given to a judgment having found a preceding regulation to be invalid - Reopening of the initial investigation to determine the normal value - Reimposition of the anti-dumping duty on the basis of the same data - Investigation period to be taken into account))
(2016/C 106/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: CM Eurologistik GmbH (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) (C-284/14)

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)

Operative part of the judgment

The consideration of the questions referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China.


(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/164 of 28 January 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Cappellacci di zucca ferraresi (PGI))
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Emilia-Romagna, Italy, designation of origin, labelling, pasta, product designation








L_2016032EN.01003001.xml










9.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 32/30








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/164
of 28 January 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Cappellacci di zucca ferraresi (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Cappellacci di zucca ferraresi’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cappellacci di zucca ferraresi’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Cappellacci di zucca ferraresi’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.5. pasta set out in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
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, 28 January 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 317, 25.9.2015, p. 12.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-64/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — General arrangements for excise duty — Directive 2008/118/EC — Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods — Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement — Goods missing on delivery — Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, excise duty, free movement of goods, tax exemption








C_2016106EN.01000802.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/8





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
(Case C-64/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - General arrangements for excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods - Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement - Goods missing on delivery - Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods))
(2016/C 106/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BP Europa SE

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement ends, for the purpose of that provision, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, when the consignee of those goods has found, on unloading in full from the means of transport carrying the goods in question, that there were shortages of the goods in comparison with the amount which should have been delivered to him.










2.


The combined provisions of Articles 7(2)(a) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the situations which they govern are outside that referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive and










—


the fact that a provision of national law transposing Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not expressly state that the irregularity governed by that provision of the directive must have given rise to the release for consumption of the goods concerned, such an omission cannot prevent the application of that national provision to the discovery of shortages, which of necessity entail such a release for consumption.














3.


Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only where the total amount of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement failed to arrive at its destination, but also where only a part of those goods failed to arrive at its destination.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-514/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel (Appeal — Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market — Decision adopted following the annulment of a decision approving the purchaser of certain assets for lack of independence of an agent — Article 266 TFEU — Enforcement of the judgment ordering annulment — Subject matter of proceedings — Legal basis for the decision at issue — Retroactive effect of that decision — Independence of the purchaser of the assets sold vis-à-vis the seller)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition, economic concentration, infringement of EU law, merger control, publishing








C_2016106EN.01000702.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/7





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel
(Case C-514/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market - Decision adopted following the annulment of a decision approving the purchaser of certain assets for lack of independence of an agent - Article 266 TFEU - Enforcement of the judgment ordering annulment - Subject matter of proceedings - Legal basis for the decision at issue - Retroactive effect of that decision - Independence of the purchaser of the assets sold vis-à-vis the seller))
(2016/C 106/09)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and B. Mongin, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure, J.-B. Pinçon and L. Bary, avocats), Wendel (represented by: M. Trabucchi, F. Gordon, A. Gosset-Grainville, avocats, and C. Renner, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, Lagardère SCA and Wendel.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Case T-434/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Arbuzov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2016098EN.01003801.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/38





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Arbuzov v Council
(Case T-434/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified))
(2016/C 098/49)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková and P. Radošovský, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119 in so far as it applies to Mr Sergej Arbuzov;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Arbuzov.






(1)  OJ C 282, 26.8.2014.
Case T-427/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Austria v Commission (State Aid — Banking sector — Aid implemented by Germany and Austria for the benefit of Bayerische Landesbank in the course of its restructuring — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, provided that certain conditions are met — Repeal of the initial decision drawn up in a language other than that of the Member State — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Definition of State aid — Advantage — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, Germany, State aid, aid for restructuring, bank, control of State aid, rights of the defence








C_2016090EN.01001301.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/13





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Austria v Commission
(Case T-427/12) (1)

((State Aid - Banking sector - Aid implemented by Germany and Austria for the benefit of Bayerische Landesbank in the course of its restructuring - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, provided that certain conditions are met - Repeal of the initial decision drawn up in a language other than that of the Member State - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Definition of State aid - Advantage - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 090/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, M. Windisch, W. Peschorn and S. Ullreich, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of Article 1(1)(d) and 1(2) of Commission Decision C (2012) 5062 final of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.28487 granted by Germany and Austria to Bayerische Landesbank (C 16/09, ex N 254/09), and, following the repeal of that decision by Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/657 of 5 February 2013 on State aid granted by Germany and Austria to Bayerische Landesbank (Case SA.28487 (C 16/09, ex N 254/09)) (OJ 2015 L 109, p. 1), for the annulment of Article 2(1)(d) and 2(2) of the latter decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.
Case F-21/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2016 — Goch v Council
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, rights of civil servants, transfer of pension rights








C_2016098EN.01006302.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/63





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2016 — Goch v Council
(Case F-21/13) (1)

(2016/C 098/83)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 156, 1/6/2013, p. 55.
Case C-61/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (Appeal — Civil aviation — Application for approval of flight conditions presented — Decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency — Rejection of an application — Compulsory preliminary administrative procedure — Possibility of an action before the court of the Union European — Role of the court — Adoption of measures of organisation of procedure — Obligation — Complex technical assessments)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, air safety, civil aviation, helicopter, technology assessment








C_2016106EN.01000801.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/8





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
(Case C-61/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil aviation - Application for approval of flight conditions presented - Decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency - Rejection of an application - Compulsory preliminary administrative procedure - Possibility of an action before the court of the Union European - Role of the court - Adoption of measures of organisation of procedure - Obligation - Complex technical assessments))
(2016/C 106/10)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Kittner, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: T. Masing, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.