do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-98/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital transfer tax, equal treatment, establishment, free movement of capital, non-profit organisation, rights of aliens, tax relief








C_2016145EN.01002501.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/25






Action brought on 17 February 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-98/16)
(2016/C 145/31)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by the adoption and retention in force of legislation which provides that a preferential inheritance tax rate for bequests of which the beneficiaries are non-profit-making bodies established in other Member States of the EU/EEA is subject to a condition of reciprocity, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Greek legislation provides for a lower tax rate for bequests of which the beneficiaries are non-profit-making (charitable etc) legal persons. However the low rate is not valid for bequests to equivalent foreign legal persons, unless the relevant States themselves grant more favourable treatment with respect to bequests to Greek non-profit-making legal persons (that is, subject to a condition of reciprocity).






—


That legislation involves discrimination to the disadvantage of (non-profit-making) legal persons of other Member States of the EU (and the EEA), which constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU).










—


That restriction is not covered by the exceptions in Article 65 TFEU.










—


The restriction cannot be justified by the relief provided to the national budget by the activities of national non-profit-making bodies (the financial argument is unacceptable).










—


Last, the principle of reciprocity cannot justify an infringement of the principle of free movement of capital by means of discrimination.
Case T-76/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01004001.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/40





Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)
(Case T-76/16)
(2016/C 118/46)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ikos GmbH (Lörrach, Germany) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AEGYPTISCHE ERDE’ — Application for registration No 14 027 239

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 in Case R 1257/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and register the mark applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-95/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Angelika Eckert v Société Air France SA
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, conflict of jurisdiction, destination of transport, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, traveller








C_2016232EN.01000201.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Angelika Eckert v Société Air France SA
(Case C-95/16)
(2016/C 232/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Angelika Eckert

Defendant: Société Air France SA
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 19 April 2016.
Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/220 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe apply
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Zimbabwe, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2016061EN.01000201.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/2





Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/220 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe apply
(2016/C 61/03)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, entities and bodies that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/220 (2), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 (3), concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons, entities and bodies that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/101/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 314/2004.
The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).
The persons, entities and bodies concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 42, 16.2.2011, p. 6.

(2)  OJ L 40, 17.2.2016, p. 11.

(3)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1.
Case C-429/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Articles 19, 22 and 29 — Liability of air carrier in the event of delay in the international carriage of passengers — Contract of carriage concluded by the passengers’ employer — Damage caused by delay — Damage suffered by the employer)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, damage, employer, indemnification, international convention, international transport








C_2016145EN.01000901.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/9






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba
(Case C-429/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Articles 19, 22 and 29 - Liability of air carrier in the event of delay in the international carriage of passengers - Contract of carriage concluded by the passengers’ employer - Damage caused by delay - Damage suffered by the employer))
(2016/C 145/09)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Air Baltic Corporation AS

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, in particular Articles 19, 22 and 29 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which has concluded a contract of international carriage with an employer of persons carried as passengers, such as the employer at issue in the main proceedings, is liable to that employer for damage occasioned by a delay in flights on which its employees were passengers pursuant to that contract, on account of which the employer incurred additional expenditure.


(1)  
            OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
Case C-97/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, drivers, labour standard, occupational safety, road safety, road transport, self-employed person, transport company, working time








C_2016156EN.01002901.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
(Case C-97/16)
(2016/C 156/38)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: José María Pérez Retamero

Defendants: TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Questions referred







1.


Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding domestic legal provisions such as Article 1.3(g) of the Workers’ Statute, which provides that ‘persons providing a transport service by virtue of administrative authorisations of which they are the holders, carried out … using vehicles … of which ownership or a direct power of disposal is vested in them cannot be regarded as ‘mobile workers’?










2.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(e) of the directive (‘[f]or the purposes of this directive, those drivers who do not satisfy these criteria shall be subject to the same obligations and benefit from the same rights as those provided for mobile workers by this directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, if none or only one of the criteria laid down for a person to be regarded as a ‘self-employed driver’ is fulfilled, the view must be taken that the person concerned is a ‘mobile worker’?






(1)  Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe apply
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Zimbabwe, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








C_2016061EN.01000301.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/3





Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe apply
(2016/C 61/04)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 (2), concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe.
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016061EN.01000401.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 February 2016
(2016/C 61/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1166




JPY


Japanese yen


127,02




DKK


Danish krone


7,4644




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77580




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4742




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1018




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6049




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,029




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,75




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4062




RON


Romanian leu


4,4613




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3023




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5605




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5430




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6950




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6931




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5656




KRW


South Korean won


1 358,70




ZAR


South African rand


17,5669




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2741




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6170




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 997,87




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6685




PHP


Philippine peso


53,050




RUB


Russian rouble


86,4489




THB


Thai baht


39,790




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4833




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0457




INR


Indian rupee


76,3985






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-58/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2016 — DE v EMA (Civil service — Temporary staff member — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS — Material change in the nature of the duties performed by the staff member — Interruption of the career path — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Excluded)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2016111EN.01004301.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/43





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2016 — DE v EMA
(Case F-58/14) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff member - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS - Material change in the nature of the duties performed by the staff member - Interruption of the career path - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Excluded))
(2016/C 111/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented initially by S. Marino, T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers, and subsequently by S. Marino, T. Jabłoński, F. Cooney and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract, and a claim for compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders DE to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014, p. 63.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7928 — RPC Group/GCS) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry








C_2016061EN.01002501.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/25





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7928 — RPC Group/GCS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 61/09)






1.


On 11 February 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking RPC Group PLC (‘RPC’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the Global Closure Systems group of companies (‘GCS’, Luxembourg), which is 100 % held by Financière Daunou 1 SA (Luxembourg), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for RPC: plastic products design and engineering for the packaging and non-packaging sectors;
—   for GCS: manufacturing of closures and dispensing systems for consumer products.










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 number M.7928 — RPC Group/GCS, 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.