do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Update of Annex II and of Tables 1 and 2 of Annex IIIb with respect to applicable euro values in accordance with Article 10a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air quality, axle tax, environmental tax, large vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, noise, road traffic, transport infrastructure








C_2016101EN.01000101.xml










17.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/1





Update of Annex II and of Tables 1 and 2 of Annex IIIb with respect to applicable euro values in accordance with Article 10a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
(2016/C 101/01)
Annex II to Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1), is updated as follows:


‘ANNEX II
MAXIMUM AMOUNTS IN EURO OF USER CHARGES, INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 7(7)

Annual








 


maximum three axles


minimum four axles




EURO 0


1 478 


2 478 




EURO I


1 286 


2 145 




EURO II


1 119 


1 866 




EURO III


972


1 622 




EURO IV and less polluting


884


1 475 





Monthly and weekly

Maximum monthly and weekly rates are in proportion to the duration of the use made of the infrastructure.

Daily

The daily user charge is equal for all vehicle categories and amounts to EUR 13.’


Annex IIIb to Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 (2), is updated as follows:


‘ANNEX IIIb
MAXIMUM WEIGHTED AVERAGE EXTERNAL-COST CHARGE
This Annex sets out the parameters to be used to calculate the maximum weighted average external-cost charge.
1.   Maximum cost of traffic-based air pollution:


Table 1


Maximum chargeable air pollution cost








cent/vehicle.kilometre


Suburban roads
(including motorways)


Interurban roads
(including motorways)




EURO 0


17,8 


13,4 




EURO I


12,2 


8,9 




EURO II


10,1 


7,9 




EURO III


7,9 


6,8 




EURO IV


4,5 


3,5 




EURO V
after 31 December 2013


0


0




3,5 


2,3 




EURO VI
after 31 December 2017


0


0




2,3 


1,2 




Less polluting than EURO VI


0


0




The values of Table 1 may be multiplied by a factor of up to 2 in mountain areas to the extent that it is justified by the gradient of roads, altitude and/or temperature inversions.
2.   Maximum cost of traffic-based noise pollution


Table 2


Maximum chargeable noise cost








cent/vehicle.kilometre


Day


Night




Suburban roads
(including motorways)


1,22 


2,23 




Interurban roads
(including motorways)


0,23 


0,35 




The values in Table 2 may be multiplied by a factor of up to 2 in mountain areas to the extent that it is justified by the gradient of roads, temperature inversions and/or amphitheatre effect of valleys.’




(1)  OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

(2)  OJ L 269, 14.10.2011, p. 1.
Case T-792/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Vanhalewyn v EEAS (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Withdrawal of the allowance for living conditions of staff posted to Mauritius — Failure to adopt the GIP for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Mauritius, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, living conditions, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016156EN.01003701.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/37






Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Vanhalewyn v EEAS
(Case T-792/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Withdrawal of the allowance for living conditions of staff posted to Mauritius - Failure to adopt the GIP for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations))
(2016/C 156/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Eric Vanhalewyn (Grand-Baie, Mauritius) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Osorio and Others v EEAS (F-101/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:223), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Osorio and Others v EEAS (F-101/13) in so far as it dismisses the action brought by Mr Eric Vanhalewyn;










2.


Annuls the decision of the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 19 December 2012 revising the amount of the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to staff posted in a third country in so far as that decision withdraws the ALC laid down in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for officials and other servants posted to Mauritius;










3.


Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case T-105/16: Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2016175EN.01001701.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/17





Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)
(Case T-105/16)
(2016/C 175/20)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Explosal Ltd (Larnaca, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel’ — EU trade mark No 10 008 084

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2016 in Case R 2775/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and either reject EUTM application no. 10008084 for all goods or, subsidiarily, send the case back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration of the prohibitions laid down by Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in light of the submitted evidence of repute and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own the costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-108/16: Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Naviera Armas v Commission
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Canary Islands, Spain, State aid, control of State aid, harbour installation, shipbuilding








C_2016175EN.01001901.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/19





Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Naviera Armas v Commission
(Case T-108/16)
(2016/C 175/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Naviera Armas, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2015 on State aid SA.36628 (2015/NN-2) (OJ 2016 C 25, p. 2) finding that no State aid was granted to the shipping company Fred Olsen S.A. in the context of measures adopted by the Kingdom of Spain at Puerto de las Nieves;










—


order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission found that the alleged exclusive right held by Fred Olsen to operate out of the port of Puerto de las Nieves (the Canary Islands, Spain), Fred Olsen’s total or partial exemption from payment of the corresponding port dues, and the conditions of use of that port which, according to the applicant, also provide an unfair advantage to that shipping company in that they exclude conventional vessels, do not constitute State aid.
In support of its action, the applicant raises a single plea claiming that it provided a sufficient statement of reasons for the Commission to have reasonable doubt concerning the existence of State aid in favour of Fred Olsen, thus giving grounds for initiation of a formal investigation procedure.
In support of that plea, the applicant contends that:






—


the excessively long duration of the preliminary examination carried out by the Commission between the date Naviera Armas lodged its complaint, 26 April 2013, and the date of the contested decision is, in itself, evidence of the complexity of the case and demonstrates that initiation of a formal investigation procedure was necessary.










—


the contested decision is vitiated by certain manifest errors in the assessment of the facts, such as stating that no undertaking requested permission to operate out of Puerto de las Nieves using high speed ferries before 2013, that Fred Olsen was the only undertaking interested in using the port in the 1990s, and that only high speed ferries can operate out of that port.










—


Fred Olsen has had exclusive use of Puerto de las Nieves since 1991 thus giving it a competitive advantage at the discretion of the Spanish authorities.










—


Fred Olsen has benefitted from total exemption from certain port dues for over 20 years.
Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7 — Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours — Article 16 — National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation — Powers — Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification








C_2016156EN.01001702.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/17






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
(Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15) (1)

((Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours - Article 16 - National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation - Powers - Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger))
(2016/C 156/24)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the body designated by each Member State pursuant to Article 16(1) of the regulation following the refusal by an air carrier to pay to the passenger the compensation provided for in Article 7(1) of the regulation, that body is not required to take enforcement action against the carrier with a view to compelling it to pay the compensation.


(1)  
            OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
Case C-565/15: Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hans-Peter Ofenböck, in the presence of: Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer price, consumer protection, fuel, price control, restriction on competition








C_2016260EN.01003702.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/37





Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hans-Peter Ofenböck, in the presence of: Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich
(Case C-565/15) (1)

(2016/C 260/46)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Notice on the implementation of the judgment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited and Puma SE concerning Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, enforcement of ruling, footwear industry, import (EU), judgment of the Court (EU), originating product








C_2016101EN.01001301.xml










17.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/13





Notice on the implementation of the judgment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited and Puma SE concerning Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam
(2016/C 101/06)
In Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 (1) the Commission informs all interested parties that it will examine market economy treatment and individual treatment claims filed by non-sampled exporting producers of certain footwear with uppers of leather from the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam, where that is necessary in the light of pending national procedures. Interested parties are invited to make themselves known within 15 days of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union at the following email address: TRADE-AD499-Footwear-Court@ec.europa.eu


(1)  See recitals 17-19 of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 41, 18.2.2016, p. 3).
Case F-2/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Pasqualetti v Commission (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff recruited by the EEAS — Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of origin — Place of recruitment — Change in the place of residence — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: allowances and expenses, indemnification, interest, residence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2016156EN.01005501.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/55






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Pasqualetti v Commission
(Case F-2/15) (1)

((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff recruited by the EEAS - Installation allowance - Daily subsistence allowance - Place of origin - Place of recruitment - Change in the place of residence - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2016/C 156/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gergő Pasqualetti (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Véghely, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and T. S. Bohr, acting as Agents, and subsequently by T. S. Bohr, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance and application seeking an order that the Commission pay him those allowances together with interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2014, by which it refused to grant Mr Pasqualetti entitlement to the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance, provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Pasqualetti, in accordance with the rules in the Staff Regulations as currently in force, the allowances referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part, together with default interest, from the dates on which they became payable respectively until the date of actual payment, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points;










3.


Declares that the European Commission shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr Pasqualetti.






(1)  
            OJ C 96, 23/3/2015, p. 25.
Case C-613/15: Order of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco SAU v José Cortés González (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Mortgage loans — Term relating to default interest — Early repayment term — Power of the national court — Time limit)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interest, loan, mortgage, national law, unfair terms of contract








C_2016200EN.01000402.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/4





Order of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco SAU v José Cortés González
(Case C-613/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loans - Term relating to default interest - Early repayment term - Power of the national court - Time limit))
(2016/C 200/06)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ibercaja Banco SAU

Defendant: José Cortés González

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2003 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) thereof do not permit the law of a Member State to restrict the discretion of a national court in respect of a finding of unfair terms in a mortgage contract concluded between a consumer and a professional, and










—


Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof require that national law may not prevent that court from setting aside such a term if it were found to be ‘unfair’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Case C-175/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country — Refusal — Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country — Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection — Applicable rules on jurisdiction)
Date: 2016-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, establishment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, third country, trade mark








C_2016156EN.01001901.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/19






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu
(Case C-175/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Refusal - Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country - Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection - Applicable rules on jurisdiction))
(2016/C 156/26)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Taser International Inc.

Defendants: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 23(5) and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country.










2.


Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as precluding, in a dispute between parties to a contract which contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country, the court of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, which has been seised, from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction, even though the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of that court.






(1)  
            OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.