do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-686/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Tomato processing sector — Aid to producer organisations — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Proportionality — Res judicata)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, fruit vegetable, principle of proportionality, vegetable product








C_2016106EN.01003202.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/32





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-686/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Tomato processing sector - Aid to producer organisations - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Proportionality - Res judicata))
(2016/C 106/36)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Galluzzo, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458 of 9 July 2014 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62), in so far as it concerns the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Case T-722/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — PRIMA v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of relative advantages of the successful tender — Transparency)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, services contract, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2016106EN.01003301.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/33





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — PRIMA v Commission
(Case T-722/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of relative advantages of the successful tender - Transparency))
(2016/C 106/37)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicants: PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Y. Ruskov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo, P. Mihaylova and D. Roussanov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of, first, the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the call for tenders PO/2013 13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events, and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, the ‘subsequent decisions’, including that of 12 September 2014 to conclude the contract for its performance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
Case T-620/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning loss carry-forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Nature and general scheme of the tax system — State resources — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, financial loss, reimbursement of aid, tax relief, tax system








C_2016106EN.01002901.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/29





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission
(Case T-620/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning loss carry-forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Nature and general scheme of the tax system - State resources - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations))
(2016/C 106/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GFKL Financial Services AG (Essen, Germany) (represented initially by M. Schweda, S. Schultes-Schnitzlein, J. Eggers and M. Knebelsberger, and subsequently by M. Schweda, J. Eggers, M. Knebelsberger and F. Loose, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and R. Lyal, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche, R. Lyal and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rejects the objection of inadmissibility;










2.


Dismisses the action as unfounded;










3.


Orders GFKL Financial Services AG to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the European Commission’s costs, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs;










4.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
Case C-163/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 23 — Licence — Register of Community trade marks — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the Register)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01000901.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/9





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
(Case C-163/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 23 - Licence - Register of Community trade marks - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the Register))
(2016/C 106/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Youssef Hassan

Defendant: Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a Community trade mark which is the subject of the licence, although that licence has not been entered in the Register of Community trade marks.


(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
Case T-247/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (STICK MiniMINI Beretta) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark STICK MiniMINI Beretta — Earlier Community word mark MINI WINI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, meat product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01003201.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/32





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (STICK MiniMINI Beretta)
(Case T-247/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark STICK MiniMINI Beretta - Earlier Community word mark MINI WINI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96))
(2016/C 106/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Barzanò, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghisletti, F. Braga and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2014 (Case R 1159/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 February 2014 (Case R 1159/2013-4) inasmuch as it rejects the submissions made by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG seeking a decision altering the decision of the Opposition Division in respect of the services in Class 43;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1501 of 8 September 2015 on the interoperability framework pursuant to Article 12(8) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (OJ L 235, 9.9.2015)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, data protection, digital literacy, electronic signature, exchange of information, information system, personal data, technical specification, transmission network




L_2016028EN.01001801.xml










4.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 28/18







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1501 of 8 September 2015 on the interoperability framework pursuant to Article 12(8) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 235 of 9 September 2015
)


On page 3, second sentence of Article 4:
for:


                  ‘The results of the mapping shall be notified to the Commission using the notification template laid down in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1505 (*1).

read:


                  ‘The results of the mapping shall be notified to the Commission using the notification template laid down in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1984 (*2).



(*1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1505 of 8 September 2015 laying down technical specifications and formats relating to trusted lists pursuant to Article 22(5) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (see page 26 of this Official Journal).’,

(*2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1984 of 3 November 2015 defining the circumstances, formats and procedures of notification pursuant to Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (OJ L 289, 5.11.2015, p. 18).’.
Case T-676/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italian International Film v EACEA (Support programme for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) — Measures of support for the transnational distribution of European films — Call for proposals in connection with the ‘selective’ scheme 2013 — EACEA act informing the applicant of the rejection of its application for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ — EACEA act confirming the rejection but stating new reasons — Powers — Distribution of tasks between the Commission and the EACEA — Circumscribed powers — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Permanent Guidelines 2012-2013 — Material or physical distribution agreement — Not communicated in advance to the EACEA — Application not eligible)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, audiovisual industry, film industry, invitation to tender, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2016106EN.01003001.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/30





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italian International Film v EACEA
(Case T-676/13) (1)

((Support programme for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) - Measures of support for the transnational distribution of European films - Call for proposals in connection with the ‘selective’ scheme 2013 - EACEA act informing the applicant of the rejection of its application for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ - EACEA act confirming the rejection but stating new reasons - Powers - Distribution of tasks between the Commission and the EACEA - Circumscribed powers - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Permanent Guidelines 2012-2013 - Material or physical distribution agreement - Not communicated in advance to the EACEA - Application not eligible))
(2016/C 106/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian International Film Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, B. Bettelli and M. Bottino, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and D. Homann, acting as Agents, and D. Fosselard and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ following call for proposals EACEA/21/12 MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘Selective’ scheme 2013 (OJ 2012 C 300, p. 5), published pursuant to Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 12) for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Italian International Film Srl and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016041EN.01000101.xml










4.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 41/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

3 February 2016
(2016/C 41/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0933




JPY


Japanese yen


130,58




DKK


Danish krone


7,4623




GBP


Pound sterling


0,75330




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3580




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1115




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5138




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,55




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3982




RON


Romanian leu


4,5093




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2138




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5484




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5234




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5266




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6560




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5631




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,87




ZAR


South African rand


17,6950




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1916




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6665




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 038,70




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6121




PHP


Philippine peso


52,370




RUB


Russian rouble


85,9910




THB


Thai baht


39,199




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3280




MXN


Mexican peso


20,1098




INR


Indian rupee


74,3900






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-7/16: Action brought on 4 February 2016 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, deduction at source, indemnification, monthly pay, work contract








C_2016145EN.01003802.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/38






Action brought on 4 February 2016 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-7/16)
(2016/C 145/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision reducing the amount of the compensation paid to the applicant, who was employed under a Belgian law contract of indeterminate duration, and providing for the recovery of the amounts overpaid.

Form of order sought







—


Principally, annul the Commission’s note of 9 April 2015 (PMO) sent to the applicant and the salary statements subsequently applying it and, if necessary, the note of 12 December 2014 and the salary statements subsequently drawn up, as regards the recalculation of her monthly compensation, and more exactly:






—


Note of 9 April 2015 of the European Commission (Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO/1 — Remuneration and management of individual rights to emoluments) to the applicant;










—


The applicant’s salary statements 04/2015 to 06/2015 and subsequent salary statements which include a deduction of EUR 208,30 (Code DPN — Remboursement dett) and subsequent salary statements;










—


Preliminary note of 12 December 2014 of the European Commission (Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO/1 — Remuneration and management of individual rights to emoluments) to the applicant;










—


The applicant’s salary statements 12/2014 to 03/2015.














—


In the alternative, annul the notes and salary statements in so far as they make deductions applied retroactively from the remuneration received by the applicant until 9 April 2015;










—


In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case T-287/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Heitkamp BauHolding v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning loss carry-forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Nature and general scheme of the tax system)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, corporation tax, reimbursement of aid, tax law, tax relief, tax system








C_2016098EN.01002701.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/27





Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Heitkamp BauHolding v Commission
(Case T-287/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning loss carry-forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Nature and general scheme of the tax system))
(2016/C 098/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH (Herne, Germany) (represented initially by W. Niemann, M. Kiera-Nöllen and S. Geringhoff, and subsequently by W. Niemann, S. Geringhoff and P. Dodos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, and subsequently by R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and C. Egerer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rejects the objection of inadmissibility;










2.


Dismisses the action as unfounded;










3.


Orders Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the European Commission’s costs, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs;










4.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.