do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-74/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — POA/Commission
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, access to EU information, consumer information, designation of origin, disclosure of information, labelling, product designation, provision of documents, quality control of agricultural products, semi-soft cheese








C_2016145EN.01003101.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/31






Action brought on 17 February 2016 — POA/Commission
(Case T-74/16)
(2016/C 145/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision Ares(2015)5632670, of 7 December 2015, of the Secretariat General, rejecting the confirmatory application submitted by the applicant by its letter dated 15 September 2015, in which the applicant, pursuant to (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), requested access to documents concerning the application of a Cypriot producer's organization for the registration of the denomination ‘Halloumi’ under 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 (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), and










—


order the Commission to pay the legal fees of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, relying on Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001, has failed to give proper explanations why a decision-making process could be seriously undermined by the disclosure of the non-disclosed parts.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error in law as the reasons provided by the Republic of Cyprus to refuse disclosure on the basis of Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 are inadequate.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of transparency as the refusal of the Republic of Cyprus to disclose some of the documents at stake implies that the applicant is not in the position to understand the subject-matter of each non disclosed document.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in law as a Member state cannot use article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001 to refuse the disclosure of documents if the decision which could be undermined is that of an institution of the European Union.
Case T-85/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Position of two parallel stripes on a shoe)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016136EN.01003901.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/39





Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Position of two parallel stripes on a shoe)
(Case T-85/16)
(2016/C 136/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting of two parallel lines positioned on the outside surface of the upper part of a shoe — Application for registration No 10 477 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Case R 3106/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:







—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;





in the alternative:







—


remit the case to the Defendant ordering a renewed examination independent of the judgment of the General Court in case No. T-145/14;





in the second alternative:







—


remit the case to the Defendant ordering a stay of the proceedings on the outcome of the Applicant’s appeal of the General Court’s decision in case No. T-145/14 to the Court of Justice of the European Union, case No. C-396/15 P, and on delivery of a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union in said case to conduct its own evaluation of the similarities and differences between the marks to be compared.





Pleas in law







—


the Defendant erred in not making its own assessment of the similarities and differences between the Applicant’s disputed mark and the earlier mark of the Opponent registered under EU trade mark No 3 517 646;










—


the Defendant erred in finding that the conditions under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 were fulfilled.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7891 — The Carlyle Group/Comdata) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2016061EN.01000102.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7891 — The Carlyle Group/Comdata)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 61/02)
On 11 February 2016, 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 the 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 32016M7891. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-124/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hanover (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 3004 — Effervescent tablets containing 500 mg of calcium — Level of substance per recommended daily dose significantly higher than the recommended daily allowance to maintain general health or well-being)
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, labelling, medicinal product, specification of tariff heading








C_2016145EN.01001201.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hanover
(Case C-124/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 3004 - Effervescent tablets containing 500 mg of calcium - Level of substance per recommended daily dose significantly higher than the recommended daily allowance to maintain general health or well-being))
(2016/C 145/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Salutas Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hanover

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that a product, such as effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that is used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 1 500 mg, falls within heading 3004 of that nomenclature.


(1)  
            OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
Case F-10/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ v European Ombudsman
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), damages, indemnification, interest, secretarial staff








C_2016191EN.01005102.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/51





Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ v European Ombudsman
(Case F-10/16)
(2016/C 191/74)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Vasileios A. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Ombudsman

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Ombudsman not to appoint the applicant to the post of Secretary-General of the Ombudsman’s office and an order that the defendant pay damages in respect of the material and non-pecuniary losses allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision of 9 November 2015 of the European Ombudsman, by which it rejected the applicant’s administrative claims;










—


Annul the decision of 10 April 2015, which denied the applicant an interview, and the decision of 16 July 2015 appointing B.G. to the post of Secretary-General of the Ombudsman’s office;










—


Order the European Ombudsman to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 112 472,64 as compensation for the material loss suffered by him;










—


Order the European Ombudsman to pay the applicant the sum of thirty thousand euros (EUR 30 000) as compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered by him;










—


Order the European Ombudsman to pay all the applicant’s costs.
Case F-9/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ and Others v Parliament
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, education grant, interest, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016145EN.01004001.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/40






Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ and Others v Parliament
(Case F-9/16)
(2016/C 145/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decisions refusing the four applicants the grant of education allowances in respect of the year 2014-2015 and the following years and an order that the defendant is to pay the applicants the education allowances in respect of 2015/2016, together with interest calculated as of the dates on which those sums became payable under Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the contested individual decisions dated 24 April 2015;










—


so far as necessary, annul the decisions of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament dated 17 November and 19 November 2015;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the applicants the education allowance in respect of 2015/2016 together with interest calculated as of the dates on which those sums became payable under Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.
Case T-70/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-104/13 De Nicola v EIB
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2016111EN.01004101.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/41





Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-104/13 De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-70/16 P)
(2016/C 111/50)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 13 to 17, 57 to 60 and 62 to 68 of the judgment itself;










—


Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination;










—


Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-104/13).
In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.






1.


First ground of appeal, relating to the contractual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the EIB.






—


In that regard, the appellant argues that he sought compensation for damage in respect of the contractual liability of the EIB, and not the non-contractual liability of the European Union.














2.


Second ground of appeal, relating to the request for a declaration of bullying.






—


In that regard, the appellant argues, in particular, that the Civil Service Tribunal could not evade its duty to investigate an accusation of bullying, and, therefore, that it entirely unlawfully declared that the head of claim seeking a declaration that that bullying had taken place was inadmissible. The verification and legal characterisation of the facts is, inter alia, an essential ‘precondition’ in order subsequently to determine the compensation for the alleged damage.














3.


Third ground of appeal, relating to the request that the EIB be ordered to pay compensation for the damage from bullying.






—


In that regard, the appellant argues that the conditions are satisfied in the present case for the Court to examine the information and recognise the right to compensation for the damage suffered.
Case C-96/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, debt, interest, loan, unfair terms of contract








C_2016145EN.01002401.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet
(Case C-96/16)
(2016/C 145/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Banco Santander, S.A.

Defendants: Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet

Questions referred







1.


Does the business practice of assigning or purchasing debts without offering the consumer the opportunity to extinguish the debt by paying the price, interest, expenses and costs of the proceedings to the assignee comply with EU law, and specifically with Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 C of the Treaty of Lisbon, and Articles 4(2), 12 and 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? (1)











2.


Is that business practice of purchasing a consumer’s debt for a negligible price without his consent or knowledge, without including that practice as a general condition or unfair term imposed in the agreement, and without giving the consumer the opportunity to participate in that operation by purchasing and thus extinguishing the debt, compatible with the principles laid down in Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and, by extension, with the principle of effectiveness and with Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of that directive?










3.


For the purpose of safeguarding the protection of consumers and users and the Community case-law which develops it, is it in accordance with European law, Directive 93/13, and in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, to establish as an unequivocal criterion that, in unsecured loan agreements concluded with consumers, a non-negotiated term which sets a default interest rate that exceeds by more than two percentage points the basic contract rate of interest (‘ordinary interest’) is unfair?










4.


For the purpose of safeguarding the protection of consumers and users and the Community case-law which develops it, is it in accordance with European law, Directive 93/13, and in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, to establish, as a consequence, that ordinary interest will continue to accrue until the debt has been paid in full?






(1)  
            OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Results of the call for proposals — EIB Institute’s EIBURS sponsorship
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: European Investment Bank
Subjects: EU programme, candidate, cooperation in the field of education, education grant, financial aid, higher education, innovation, sponsorship, university research








C_2016061EN.01002301.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/23





Results of the call for proposals — EIB Institute’s EIBURS sponsorship
(2016/C 61/08)
The EIB-University Research Sponsorship Programme (EIBURS) is part of the EIB Institute’s Knowledge Programme, through which the EIB fosters relationships with universities. EIBURS provides grants of up to EUR 100 000 per year for a period of three years to research centres working on topics of major interest to the EIB Group. The grants are awarded through a competitive process to interested university departments or research institutes in the EU, candidate countries or potential candidate countries, with recognised expertise in areas of direct interest to the EIB Group. The grants seek to enable the chosen centres to expand their activities in these areas.
For the period 2015-2018, the EIBURS programme selected one new line of research:






—


How can larger organisations also be innovative organisations?




The call for proposals was published in OJ C 233 of 17 July 2015 and the EIB Institute received 27 proposals by the deadline of 30 September 2015. The following table indicates the distribution of the proposals by country:






EIBURS 2015


TOTAL




BE


1




BG


4




DE


1




DK


2




ES


1




FI


1




FR


2




IT


4




LT


3




LU


1




NL


1




RO


1




RS


1




SI


2




SK


1




TR


1





Total




27





The Knowledge Committee decided, on 13 January 2016, to award the EIBURS grant on ‘How can larger organisations also be innovative organisations?’ to the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (Italy).
The description of the EIBURS sponsorship project will be published on the Knowledge Programme page of the EIB Institute’s website once the contract with the university has been signed.
All applicants have been directly informed of these results.
The next round of EIBURS is expected to be launched in the coming months. The themes to be proposed will be announced at the launch.
For more extensive information on EIBURS and on the other Knowledge Programme initiatives, please visit the Knowledge Programme page of the EIB Institute’s website.
Case T-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, promotion, staff assessment








C_2016118EN.01003701.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/37





Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-71/16 P)
(2016/C 118/42)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 68 to 75 of the judgment itself;










—


Consequently, order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;










—


Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-82/12).
The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.
The appellant argues, in particular, that the claim for damages in Case F-82/12 was wrongly treated as equivalent to the claim for damages in Case F-55/08, and that there was an incorrect finding of res judicata regarding some of the requests for compensation.
Communication from the Commission in pursuance of Article 4 of Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on summer-time arrangements — Schedule for the summer-time period
Date: 2016-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: summertime








C_2016061EN.01000101.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/1





COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
in pursuance of Article 4 of Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on summer-time arrangements
Schedule for the summer-time period
(2016/C 61/01)
For 2017-2021 inclusive, the summer-time periods will begin and end respectively on the following dates at 1.00 a.m. UTC — Coordinated Universal Time:
—   in 2017: the Sundays of 26 March and 29 October,
—   in 2018: the Sundays of 25 March and 28 October,
—   in 2019: the Sundays of 31 March and 27 October,
—   in 2020: the Sundays of 29 March and 25 October,
—   in 2021: the Sundays of 28 March and 31 October.