do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-495/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento (Italy)) — Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin and Piero Constantini v Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public procurement — National legislation — Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement — Right to an effective remedy — Dissuasive fees — Judicial review of administrative decisions — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, administrative transparency, award of contract, equal treatment, judicial review, national law, tendering








C_2016270EN.01001001.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/10





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento (Italy)) — Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin and Piero Constantini v Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

(Case C-495/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - National legislation - Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement - Right to an effective remedy - Dissuasive fees - Judicial review of administrative decisions - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence))
(2016/C 270/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin, Piero Constantini

Defendants: Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

Operative part of the order

Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring the payment of court fees, such as the standard fee at issue in the main proceedings, when proceedings are brought in the public procurement field before the administrative courts.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Case C-193/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded — Set of indicia — Distortion of the sense of the evidence)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2016211EN.01002001.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/20






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-193/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia - Distortion of the sense of the evidence))
(2016/C 211/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Tarif Akhras (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and L. Havas, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Tarif Akhras to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Case C-8/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, freedom to provide services, game of chance, invitation to tender, national law, principle of proportionality, provision of services, right of establishment, trade licence, transfer of property








C_2016270EN.01001301.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/13





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella
(Case C-8/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
(2016/C 270/16)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Criminal proceedings against

Paola Tonachella

Operative part of the order

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case T-580/14: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission (Customs union — Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra — Fraud — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Andorra, Catalonia, Spain, abolition of customs duties, originating product, syrup








C_2016191EN.01002902.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/29





Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission
(Case T-580/14) (1)

((Customs union - Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra - Fraud - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 191/38)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: I. Toda Jiménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 2376 final of 15 April 2014, finding in a particular case that remission of import duties was not justified (REM 02/2012).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL is ordered to pay one third of the costs of the European Commission and its own costs.










3.


The European Commission is ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Case C-5/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — AK (*) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Objection to refusal of authorisation for care)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, dismissal, insurance contract, legal aid, legal expenses, public institution




C_2016211EN.01001802.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/18






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) —  AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand
(Case C-5/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Objection to refusal of authorisation for care))
(2016/C 211/22)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AK (*1)


Defendants: Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision covers the stage of an objection before a public body during which that body gives a decision against which an action may be brought before the courts.


(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
Case F-44/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Spadafora v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Post of Head of Unit — Vacancy notice — Selection procedure — Pre-selection panel — Interview with the pre-selection panel — Not included on the short-list of candidates proposed for a final interview with the Appointing Authority — Regularity of the selection procedure — Priority recruitment of a candidate having the nationality of a particular Member State — Conduct of the president of the pre-selection panel — Language discrimination — Claim for compensation — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: appointment of staff, competition (EU), executive, indemnification, job access, linguistic discrimination








C_2016175EN.01003401.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/34





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Spadafora v Commission
(Case F-44/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Post of Head of Unit - Vacancy notice - Selection procedure - Pre-selection panel - Interview with the pre-selection panel - Not included on the short-list of candidates proposed for a final interview with the Appointing Authority - Regularity of the selection procedure - Priority recruitment of a candidate having the nationality of a particular Member State - Conduct of the president of the pre-selection panel - Language discrimination - Claim for compensation - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 175/40)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Sergio Spadafora (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to appoint a person other than the applicant, who had been acting Head of Unit since the departure of the preceding Head of Unit, to the post of Head of Unit C4 (Legal Advice).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2.


Mr Sergio Spadafora shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015, p. 27.
Case C-483/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rome Convention — Applicable law — Cross-border merger — Directive 78/855/EEC — Directive 2005/56/EC — Merger by acquisition — Protection of creditors — Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company law, contract, international merger, law of obligations, public limited company, securities








C_2016211EN.01001401.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/14






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group
(Case C-483/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention - Applicable law - Cross-border merger - Directive 78/855/EEC - Directive 2005/56/EC - Merger by acquisition - Protection of creditors - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company))
(2016/C 211/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KA Finanz AG

Defendant: Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

Operative part of the judgment







1.


EU law must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations are extinguished is the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger;










—


the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are those of national law which were applicable to that company.














2.


Article 15 of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as granting rights to holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, but not to the issuer of such securities.






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case C-460/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, dismissal, insurance contract, legal aid, legal expenses, public institution








C_2016211EN.01001301.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/13






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV
(Case C-460/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract))
(2016/C 211/14)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Johannes Evert Antonius Massar

Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision includes a procedure at the end of which a public body authorises an employer to dismiss an employee who is covered by legal expenses insurance.


(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7881 — AB InBev/SAB Miller) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016123EN.01003301.xml










7.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/33





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7881 — AB InBev/SAB Miller)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 123/04)






1.


On 30 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 undertaking Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (‘AB InBev’, Belgium) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking SAB Miller plc (‘SAB Miller’, United Kingdom) by way of public bid.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for AB InBev: production, marketing and distribution of beer, non-alcohol/low-alcohol beer, cider and soft drink products,
—   for SAB Miller: production, marketing and distribution of beer and soft drink products.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7881 — AB InBev/SAB Miller, 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 T-156/16: Action brought on 7 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM)
Date: 2016-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, computer equipment, education, industrial research, registered trade mark, scientific research, software, trade-mark law








C_2016211EN.01006001.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/60






Action brought on 7 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM)
(Case T-156/16)
(2016/C 211/74)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen, Germany), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM’ — Application for registration No 9 569 658

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 9/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 658 by the participants;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs or;










—


in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.