do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, consumer, executive agency, farming sector, financial year, foodstuff, general budget (EU), public health, publication of accounts








C_2016143EN.01002401.xml










22.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 143/24





Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
(2016/C 143/07)

REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1






EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY





1 0


EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY


8 534 500 


–16 124 


8 518 376 




 



Title 1 — Total




8 534 500 




–16 124 




8 518 376 






2






PARTICIPATION OF THIRD COUNTRIES





2 0


PARTICIPATION OF EFTA COUNTRIES IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY


161 070 


 


161 070 




 



Title 2 — Total




161 070 



 



161 070 





 



GRAND TOTAL




8 695 570 




–16 124 




8 679 446 






EXPENDITURE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1






STAFF EXPENDITURE





1 1


REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES


4 719 607 


–16 124 


4 703 483 




1 2


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURE


277 700 


 


277 700 




 



Title 1 — Total




4 997 307 




–16 124 




4 981 183 






2






INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE





2 1


BUILDING EXPENDITURE


1 008 500 


 


1 008 500 




2 2


ICT


210 000 


 


210 000 




2 3


MOVABLE PROPERTY AND CURRENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE


192 853 


 


192 853 




 



Title 2 — Total




1 411 353 



 



1 411 353 






3






PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE





3 1


PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE


2 286 910 


 


2 286 910 




 



Title 3 — Total




2 286 910 



 



2 286 910 





 



GRAND TOTAL




8 695 570 




–16 124 




8 679 446 






Establishment plan










Function group and grade


Permanent posts


Temporary posts




2016


2015


2016


2015




AD 16


—


—


—


—




AD 15


—


—


—


—




AD 14


—


—


1 


1 




AD 13


—


—


1 


1 




AD 12


—


—


3 


2 




AD 11


—


—


2 


2 




AD 10


—


—


—


—




AD 9


—


—


—


—




AD 8


—


—


1 


1 




AD 7


—


—


—


—




AD 6


—


—


2 


2 




AD 5


—


—


3 


2 




Subtotal A


—


—


13 


11 




AST 11


—


—


—


—




AST 10


—


—


—


—




AST 9


—


—


—


—




AST 8


—


—


—


—




AST 7


—


—


1 


1 




AST 6


—


—


—


—




AST 5


—


—


—


—




AST 4


—


—


1 


1 




AST 3


—


—


—


—




AST 2


—


—


—


—




AST 1


—


—


—


—




Subtotal AST


—


—


2 


2 





Total




—




—




15 




13
Case C-226/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: gas supply, natural gas, security of supply, storage of hydrocarbons








C_2016251EN.01001001.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer
(Case C-226/16)
(2016/C 251/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 (1) be interpreted as constituting an obstacle to the imposition by a Member State on natural gas suppliers of additional obligations resulting from the inclusion among ‘protected customers’, whose consumption contributes to defining the limits of the storage obligations designed to ensure continuity of supply, of customers who are not mentioned in Article 2(1) of that regulation?










2.


Must Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 be interpreted as constituting an obstacle to the imposition by a Member State on natural gas suppliers of obligations relating to the volumes of gas stored and the withdrawal rates attached thereto, and to the holding of storage capacities acquired by virtue of rights reflecting the obligation to hold stocks on the territory of that Member State, whilst at the same time providing that the Minister, in assessing a supplier’s storage capacities, is to take account of the other regulatory instruments available to that supplier?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC (OJ 2010 L 295, p. 1).
Case T-178/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, paints and varnishes, paper, paperboard, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016211EN.01006501.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/65






Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)
(Case T-178/16)
(2016/C 211/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Policolor’ — Application for registration No 10 277 176

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 346/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision in its entirety;










—


in consequence, annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 16 December 2014 in opposition No B 1 991 457;










—


dismiss the opposition made by the intervener with regard to the registration of the European Union trade mark No 10 277 176;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the procedure before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No. 2015/2424.
Case T-56/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Reasonable time)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, State aid, control of State aid, excise duty, fuel, metallurgical industry, mineral oil, principle of legal certainty, tax exemption








C_2016200EN.01001801.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/18





Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission
(Case T-56/06 RENV II) (1)

((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Reasonable time))
(2016/C 200/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Article 5 of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, respectively, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), in so far as it obliges the French Republic to recover the State aid incompatible with the common market it granted, between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region (France).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;










3.


Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.






(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
Case T-140/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Secretary General of an Institution, abuse of power, debt, equal treatment, remuneration of work, servant (EU)








C_2016200EN.01002601.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/26





Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament
(Case T-140/16 R)
((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
(2016/C 200/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering the recovery from the applicant of a sum of 320 026,23 euros, and of debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7726 — Coty/Procter & Gamble Beauty Businesses) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016141EN.01000102.xml










22.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7726 — Coty/Procter & Gamble Beauty Businesses)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 141/02)
On 16 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 32016M7726. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-187/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO – Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Chile, EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2016243EN.01003701.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/37





Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO – Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)
(Case T-187/16)
(2016/C 243/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viña y Bodega Botalcura SA (Las Condes, Chile)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITU’ – Application for registration No 12 684 833

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 719/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


deliver a judgment accepting the action, fully annulling the contested decision;










—


order to dismiss the European Union Trademark Application for the word mark LITU in relation to all the goods;










—


order that the Defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings should bear the fees and costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-181/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016222EN.01002701.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/27






Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)
(Case T-181/16)
(2016/C 222/34)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER PRECISE’ — Application for registration No 11 567 203

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2911/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: European Union Agency for Railways
Subjects: EU expenditure, European Union Agency for Railways, amending budget, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts








C_2016143EN.01001801.xml










22.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 143/18





Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Railway Agency for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
(2016/C 143/05)

REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1






REVENUES FROM FEES AND CHARGES





1 0


OWN REVENUES


—


 


—




 



Title 1 — Total




—



 



—






2






SUBSIDY FROM THE COMMISSION





2 0


SUBSIDY FROM THE COMMISSION


26 000 000 


 


26 000 000 




 



Title 2 — Total




26 000 000 



 



26 000 000 






3






THIRD COUNTRIES' CONTRIBUTIONS





3 0


THIRD COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTIONS


695 879 


150 000 


845 879 




 



Title 3 — Total




695 879 




150 000 




845 879 






9






MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES





9 0


MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES


—


 


—




9 9


PDB RESTORED BUT RESERVES


—


 


—




 



Title 9 — Total




—



 



—





 



GRAND TOTAL




26 695 879 




150 000 




26 845 879 






EXPENDITURE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1






STAFF





1 1


STAFF IN ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT


16 793 879 


 


16 793 879 




1 3


MISSIONS AND TRAVEL


140 000 


 


140 000 




1 4


SOCIOMEDICAL INFRASTRUCTURE


335 000 


 


335 000 




1 5


STAFF EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR


210 000 


 


210 000 




1 7


ENTERTAINMENT AND REPRESENTATION


5 000 


 


5 000 




1 9


PENSIONS


p.m.


 


p.m.




 



Title 1 — Total




17 483 879 



 



17 483 879 






2






BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENDITURE





2 0


INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, RENTAL OF BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS


1 315 000 


 


1 315 000 




2 1


DATA PROCESSING


669 000 


 


669 000 




2 2


MOVABLE PROPERTY AND ASSOCIATED COSTS


212 000 


 


212 000 




2 3


CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE


191 000 


 


191 000 




2 4


POST AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS


205 000 


 


205 000 




2 5


MEETINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS


p.m.


 


p.m.




 



Title 2 — Total




2 592 000 



 



2 592 000 






3






EXPENSES RELATING TO PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC MISSIONS





3 0


OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE REGULATION (EC) NO 881/2004


3 520 000 


150 000 


3 670 000 




3 1


OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES


3 100 000 


 


3 100 000 




 



Title 3 — Total




6 620 000 




150 000 




6 770 000 






9






EXPENSES NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR





9 9


PDB RESTORED BUT RESERVES


p.m.


 


p.m.




 



Title 9 — Total




p.m.



 



p.m.





 



GRAND TOTAL




26 695 879 




150 000 




26 845 879
Case T-180/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016222EN.01002602.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/26






Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)
(Case T-180/16)
(2016/C 222/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER SHAPE’ — Application for registration No 11 566 262

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2907/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Inapplicability of the Regulation to a notified operation (Case M.7940 — Netto/Grocery Store at Armitage Avenue Little Hulton) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, foodstuff, goods and services, merger control, retail trade








C_2016141EN.01000101.xml










22.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/1





Inapplicability of the Regulation to a notified operation
(Case M.7940 — Netto/Grocery Store at Armitage Avenue Little Hulton)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 141/01)
On 26 February 2016, the Commission decided that the notified operation in the above case does not fall within the scope of the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) because it does not constitute a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the said Regulation. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(a) of the Regulation. 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 32016M7940. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-182/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016222EN.01002801.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/28






Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)
(Case T-182/16)
(2016/C 222/35)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER DUO’ — Application for registration No 11 577 574

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2916/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.