do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-319/15: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited v Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, claim, damages, economic sanctions, enforcement of ruling, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice








C_2016260EN.01001302.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/13





Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris — France) — Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited v Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique
(Case C-319/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 260/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d'appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

Re:

There is no need to adjudicate on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris (France) by decision of 22 June 2015.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Information relating to the date of the entry into force of the Cooperation Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) between the European Community and its Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Morocco, cooperation agreement (EU), industrial cooperation, satellite navigation, scientific cooperation, technical cooperation, trade cooperation








L_2016076EN.01001601.xml










23.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 76/16







Information relating to the date of the entry into force of the Cooperation Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) between the European Community and its Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco

The Cooperation Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) between the European Community and its Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Brussels on 11 December 2006, entered into force on 1 March 2015, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 24 February 2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7968 — EQT Services UK/Kuoni Travel Holding) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, hotel industry, investment company, merger control, travel agency








C_2016108EN.01001701.xml










23.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7968 — EQT Services UK/Kuoni Travel Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 108/07)






1.


On 16 March 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 investment fund EQT VII, controlled by EQT Services (UK) Limited (‘EQT’ of United Kingdom), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole undertaking Kuoni Travel Holding Ltd (‘Kuoni’ of Switzerland), by way of a public bid.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for EQT: investment fund. EQT’s portfolio companies are active in a number of industries and one of its funds controls the hotel chain Scandic Hotel Groups, which is primarily active in Northern Europe.
—   for Kuoni: service provider to the global travel industry and governments.










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.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7968 — EQT Services UK/Kuoni Travel Holding, 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’).
Case C-176/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Liguria, bread, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








C_2016191EN.01002002.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/20





Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission
(Case C-176/16 P)
(2016/C 191/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni, G. Pescatore, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the order of inadmissibility No 704600 of 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 on the grounds set out, which are to be taken to be referred to and reproduced in full.










—


Declare the action admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling, following the adoption of any measures it may think fit to take.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings. If the present appeal should be dismissed (quod non), the appellant requests that from now on the parties should bear their own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following three grounds on the plea of inadmissibility:
FIRST GROUND: Error in law and in fact regarding the lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings. The General Court, in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the order, erroneously ruled that the applicant had no legal interest in applying for annulment of the Regulation, identifying by means of illogical reasoning the distributors of third party brands as the sole beneficiaries of the annulment of the contested Regulation exclusively, and not Proforec directly.
SECOND GROUND: Failure by the General Court to apply Article 263(4) of TFEU to the consideration of the applicant’s legal interest in bringing proceedings, which was denied.
THIRD GROUND: In paragraphs 32 to 35 of the order of inadmissibility, the General Court did not give an adequate statement of reasons for the applicant’s lack of legal interest, in that it misrepresented the facts concerning the lack of risk of legal proceedings being brought against Proforec, failing to consider it as an existing risk on the date the proceedings were started, and not taking any position on the obvious infringement of the regulation in relation to the omission of a transitional period for the disposal of stocks and packaging.
Case T-118/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, postal and telecommunications services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016165EN.01001801.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/18





Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)
(Case T-118/16)
(2016/C 165/20)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bpost NV (Brussels, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BEPOST’ — Application No 8 897 829

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 3107/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7928 — RPC Group/GCS) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry








C_2016108EN.01000101.xml










23.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7928 — RPC Group/GCS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 108/01)
On 11 March 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 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 32016M7928. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-132/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer applications, electronic banking, electronic money, financial transaction, payment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016191EN.01003701.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/37





Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)
(Case T-132/16)
(2016/C 191/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: PayPal, Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda)

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 word mark ‘VENMO’ — EU trade mark No 9 509 357

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 2974/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceeding be borne by EUIPO and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016108EN.01000201.xml










23.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 March 2016
(2016/C 108/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1212 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4541 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78790 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2315 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0887 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4470 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,037 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2612 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4703 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2260 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4751 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4679 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6942 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6626 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5260 




KRW


South Korean won


1 302,05 




ZAR


South African rand


17,1950 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2791 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5380 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 772,93 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4882 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,922 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,2330 




THB


Thai baht


39,164 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0526 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,5680 




INR


Indian rupee


74,7605 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-17/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU), secretarial staff, servant (EU)








C_2016191EN.01005301.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/53





Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-17/16)
(2016/C 191/77)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to have regard to the late request for review of the decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 and for annulment of the implied decision not to grant that request for review.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 17 August 2015, received by the applicant by e-mail, not to have regard to the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 following the decision of the selection board in that competition;










—


annul the implied decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 not to grant the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition;










—


order the Commission to pay the entire costs.
Case C-167/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 23 March 2016 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, consumer credit, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, loan, unfair terms of contract








C_2016200EN.01001101.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 23 March 2016 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García
(Case C-167/16)
(2016/C 200/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Defendants: Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts compatible with the fact that a finding that an accelerated repayment clause, which is the grounds for enforcement proceedings, is unfair does not give rise to any consequences in the legal proceedings in which that finding is made?










2.


Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 compatible with an interpretation whereby the consequences of a finding that an accelerated repayment clause is unfair are made conditional upon the specific characteristics of the proceedings for which the seller or supplier may opt?










3.


Is an interpretation to the effect that, although a pre-formulated clause allows accelerated maturity in a long-term contract for breach that is not serious, leaving the consumer in worse circumstances than those resulting from the supplemental national provision, the clause would not be void solely because a corrective rule exists in the national procedural provision that is applicable only in the specific procedure chosen by the seller or supplier and only if certain conditions are fulfilled, compatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13?










4.


Is Article 693.3 [of the] Code of Civil Procedure (2) an appropriate and effective remedy that enables the consumer to remedy the effects of an unfair accelerated repayment clause, account being taken of the fact that he must pay the interest and costs?










5.


Is a national procedural law which grants rights to a consumer that he can rely upon in specially expedited enforcement proceedings which the seller or supplier may choose from among other options, in which such rights are unknown, consistent with the principle of effectiveness of Directive 93/13 and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (3)







(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (LEC).

(3)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
Call for proposals — European Defence Agency (EDA)
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: European Defence Agency
Subjects: invitation to tender, military aircraft, military science, research project








C_2016108EN.01000501.xml










23.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/5





Call for proposals — European Defence Agency (EDA)
(2016/C 108/04)
The European Defence Agency (EDA) is launching a call for proposals under the Union-funded pilot project on defence research. The management of the pilot project and its implementation through call for proposals has been entrusted to the EDA through a Delegation Agreement concluded with the European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
The call has the objective of requesting proposals to address the following topics:






(1)


PP-15-INR-01: Unmanned heterogeneous swarm of sensor platforms;










(2)


PP-15-STAN-CERT-01: Standardisation of remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) detect and avoid (DAA);










(3)


Inside-building awareness and navigation for urban warfare (Subject to availability of funds).




All information relating to the present call for proposal can be found on the EDA Procurement Gateway website: http://www.eda.europa.eu/procurement-gateway
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/612 of 23 March 2016 on the signing and conclusion of the Participation Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)
Date: 2016-03-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU police mission, Mali, Sahel, Switzerland, agreement (EU), democratisation, paramilitary force, peacekeeping, ratification of an agreement, signature of an agreement








L_2016105EN.01000101.xml










21.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 105/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/612
of 23 March 2016
         
on the signing and conclusion of the Participation Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


Article 10(4) of Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP (1) provides that detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States are to be covered by agreements concluded in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union.












(2)


On 7 December 2015, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a Participation Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (‘the Agreement’).












(3)


The Agreement should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Participation Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.


Article 3
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 9(1) of the Agreement.


Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 23 March 2016.


For the Council


The President

A.G. KOENDERS
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21).