do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7931 — Pai Partners/B&B Hotels) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2016074EN.01000201.xml










26.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7931 — Pai Partners/B&B Hotels)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 74/02)
On 22 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 English 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 32016M7931. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case F-25/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016136EN.01004902.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/49





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission
(Case F-25/13) (1)

(2016/C 136/70)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 156, 1/6/2013, p. 55.
Case T-507/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff — Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Croatia, accession to the European Union, bailiff, damages, fundamental rights, indemnification, judicial reform, national law








C_2016118EN.01002701.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/27





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission
(Case T-507/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff - Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 36 of the Act of Accession))
(2016/C 118/29)
Language of the case: Croatian

Parties


Applicants: Vedran Vidmar (Zagreb, Croatia) and the 21 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment (represented by: D. Graf, lawyer), and Darko Graf (Zagreb) (represented initially by D Graf and subsequently by L. Duvnjak, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Commission while monitoring the fulfilment of accession commitments by the Republic of Croatia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case F-29/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — Wisniewski v Commission
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, reassignment, transfer of pension rights








C_2016136EN.01005001.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/50





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — Wisniewski v Commission
(Case F-29/14) (1)

(2016/C 136/72)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 184, 16/6/2014, p. 44.
Case F-56/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016136EN.01004903.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/49





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission
(Case F-56/13) (1)

(2016/C 136/71)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 29.
Joined Cases T/546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Šumelj and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation providing for the creation of the profession of public enforcement officer — Harm suffered by the persons previously appointed as public enforcement officers — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures ensuring compliance with the accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Croatia, accession to the European Union, bailiff, damages, enforcement of ruling, fundamental rights, indemnification, judicial reform, national law








C_2016118EN.01002301.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/23





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Šumelj and Others v Commission
(Joined Cases T/546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Repeal before accession of national legislation providing for the creation of the profession of public enforcement officer - Harm suffered by the persons previously appointed as public enforcement officers - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures ensuring compliance with the accession commitments - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 36 of the Act of Accession))
(2016/C 118/23)
Language of the case: Croatian

Parties


Applicants: Ante Šumelj (Zagreb, Croatia), Dubravka Bašljan (Zagreb), Đurđica Crnčević (Sv. Ivan Zeline, Croatia), Miroslav Lovreković (Križevaci, Croatia) (Case T-546/13); Drago Burazer (Zagreb), Nikolina Nežić (Zagreb), Blaženka Bošnjak (Sv. Ivan Zeline), Bosiljka Grbašić (Križevaci), Tea Tončić (Pula, Croatia), Milica Bjelić (Dubrovnik, Croatia), Marijana Kruhoberec (Varaždin, Croatia) (Case T-108/14); Davor Škugor (Sisak, Croatia), Ivan Gerometa (Vrsar, Croatia), Kristina Samardžić (Split, Croatia), Sandra Cindrić (Karlovac, Croatia), Sunčica Gložinić (Varaždin), Tomislav Polić (Kaštel Novi, Croatia) and Vlatka Pižeta (Varaždin) (Case T-109/14) (represented by: M. Krmek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Ćutuk and G. Wils and, in Cases T-546/13 and T-108/14, S. Ječmenica, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the failure by the Commission to take measures to ensure the Republic of Croatia’s compliance with its accession commitments.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Mr Ante Šumelj and the other applicants named in the annex to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Case T-241/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Remuneration — Reform of the EIB rewards scheme — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Errors of law)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, bonus payment, damages, indemnification, pay scale, work contract








C_2016118EN.01002501.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/25





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB
(Case T-241/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Remuneration - Reform of the EIB rewards scheme - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Errors of law))
(2016/C 118/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France), Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France), Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg), Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 in Bodson and Others v EIB (F-83/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:15) seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-87/16: Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Eurofast v Commission
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, claim, damages, financial aid, intelligent transport system, interest, principle of legal certainty, road safety, road transport








C_2016136EN.01004002.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/40





Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Eurofast v Commission
(Case T-87/16)
(2016/C 136/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s offsetting decision of 17 December 2015;










—


declare the debt claimed by the Commission against Eurofast under the ASSET contract to be unfounded;










—


declare that all expenditure in respect of the ASSET project, corresponding to EUR 507 574, is eligible and order the Commission to confirm that the funding, as specified in the Grant Agreement, corresponding to EUR 365 639, is lawful;










—


order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 69 923,68 under the EKSISTENZ contract, plus late-payment interest;










—


order the Commission to pay contractual compensation;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, respectively, in support of its application for annulment of the offsetting decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 17 December 2015 and in support of its application for a declaration that the contested contractual debt does not exist.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 78 and 80 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, Article II.21 of Annex II to the FP7 Grant agreement (General conditions), the principle of good faith laid down in Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the contractual rules under the General Conditions of the ASSET grant contract and a manifest error of assessment of the rules relating to eligible costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7953 — AXA/Group CM-11/Target) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, real estate business








C_2016074EN.01002501.xml










26.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/25





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7953 — AXA/Group CM-11/Target)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 74/11)






1.


On 19 February 2016, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which a number of entities controlled by the undertakings AXA SA (‘AXA’, France) and Assurances du Crédit Mutuel Vie SA (‘ACM Vie’, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint indirect control of an office building by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


AXA is a global insurance group active in life and health insurance, other forms of insurance, and investment management;










—


ACM Vie develops and markets a full range of personal insurance products. ACM Vie is a wholly owned subsidiary of Groupe des Assurances du Crédit Mutuel SA, which is controlled by Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel SA;










—


The office building is located in the business district of La Défense in France.














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 to it their observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date on which this notification is published. They can be sent to the Commission under reference number M.7953 — AXA/Group CM-11/Target by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016074EN.01000301.xml










26.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2016
(2016/C 74/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1027




JPY


Japanese yen


124,01




DKK


Danish krone


7,4617




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78920




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3808




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0935




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5413




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,052




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,86




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3581




RON


Romanian leu


4,4673




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2248




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5292




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5025




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5676




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6487




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5463




KRW


South Korean won


1 366,74




ZAR


South African rand


17,1657




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2026




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6220




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 787,76




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6500




PHP


Philippine peso


52,532




RUB


Russian rouble


83,9575




THB


Thai baht


39,322




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3527




MXN


Mexican peso


20,0011




INR


Indian rupee


75,9485






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-210/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Mederer GmbH v OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark Gummi Bear-Rings — Earlier national figurative mark GUMMY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01002302.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/23





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Mederer GmbH v OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings)
(Case T-210/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark Gummi Bear-Rings - Earlier national figurative mark GUMMY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 118/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mederer GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and O. Ruhl, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Padial Martinez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December (Case R 225/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings B V and Mederer GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mederer GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case T-240/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Errors of law)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, damages, indemnification, pay scale, work contract








C_2016118EN.01002401.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/24





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB
(Case T-240/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Errors of law))
(2016/C 118/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France), Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France), Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg), Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 in Bodson and Others v EIB (F-73/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:16) seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-93/16: Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, explosive, firearms and munitions, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016136EN.01004301.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/43





Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)
(Case T-93/16)
(2016/C 136/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘VANGUARD’ — Application for registration No 11 166 003

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 69/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.