do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-528/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 — Article 3 — Relief from import duties — Personal property — Transfer of residence from a third country to a Member State — Definition of ‘normal place of residence’ — Impossible to have at the same time a normal place of residence in a Member State and in a third country — Criteria for determining the normal place of residence)
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, common customs tariff, exemption from customs duties, import (EU), personal effects, residence, third country








C_2016243EN.01001002.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/10





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-528/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 - Article 3 - Relief from import duties - Personal property - Transfer of residence from a third country to a Member State - Definition of ‘normal place of residence’ - Impossible to have at the same time a normal place of residence in a Member State and in a third country - Criteria for determining the normal place of residence))
(2016/C 243/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that provision, a natural person may not have at the same time a normal place of residence in both a Member State and in a third country.










2.


In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where the person concerned has both personal and occupational ties in a third country and personal ties in a Member State, it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether the normal place of residence of that person within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1186/2009 is in the third country, to attach particular importance to the length of that person’s stay in the third country when carrying out an overall assessment of the relevant facts.






(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
Case T-189/16: Action brought on 27 April 2016 – Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO – Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01002401.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/24





Action brought on 27 April 2016 – Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO – Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)
(Case T-189/16)
(2016/C 232/32)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Torino, Italy)

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 containing the word element ‘CReMESPRESSO’ – EU trade mark No 8 919 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2823/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision as far as it allows the CTM proprietor’s appeal and annuls the decision of the EUIPO of 24 October 2014 in part, namely for ‘ice cream makers, ice cream machines, and coffee machines’ in Class 11, and ‘electric ice crushers’ in Class 7;










—


order the Respondent and Intervener to pay the costs of this Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of CTMR.
Case T-155/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Persona and Terregov projects — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim — Default interest)
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, contractual liability, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2016211EN.01004402.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/44






Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission
(Case T-155/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Persona and Terregov projects - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid - Counter-claim - Default interest))
(2016/C 211/55)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

Applications, under Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the subsidies paid to the applicant in implementation of the contracts No. 045459 ‘Perceptual spaces promoting independent aging’, and No. 507749 ‘Impact of e-governance on local and regional administrative services’, concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) is unfounded, and, second, to order the Commission to pay the balance of the unpaid subsidies under the first of those contracts and, on the other, to order the applicant, by way of counterclaim, to reimburse the subsidies unduly paid under those contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the appeal brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias;










2)


Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 606 570,61, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 045459 ‘Perceptual spaces promoting independent aging’ and No. 507749 ‘Impact of e-governance on local and regional administrative services’, concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %;










3)


Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016148EN.01000101.xml










27.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

26 April 2016
(2016/C 148/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1287 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,45 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4418 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77483 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1545 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1000 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2278 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,027 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3799 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4747 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1951 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4600 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4276 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7545 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6417 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5280 




KRW


South Korean won


1 299,14 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3492 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3345 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4785 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 917,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4279 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,864 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,8948 




THB


Thai baht


39,708 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9943 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,7889 




INR


Indian rupee


75,1373 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2016) 71 final — 2016/43 (NLE))
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, EU employment policy, economic growth, education, fight against unemployment, job creation, labour market, poverty, social integration, vocational training




C_2016264EN.01013401.xml










20.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/134





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States
(COM(2016) 71 final — 2016/43 (NLE))
(2016/C 264/18)
On 24 February 2016 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 148(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the:

Proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States

(COM(2016) 71 final — 2016/43 (NLE))
Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its earlier opinion on employment guidelines (EESC-2015-01167-00-02-AC-TRA) adopted on 27 May 2015 (*), it decided, at its 516th plenary session of 27 and 28 April 2016 (meeting of 27 April 2016), by 220 votes to 1 with 7 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned documents.

Brussels, 27 April 2016.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS




(*)  EESC Opinion SOC/519 on the proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2015) 098 final — 2015/0051 (NLE)) (OJ C 332, 8.10.2015, p. 68).
Case T-89/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NIAGARA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, drinking water, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016211EN.01005001.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/50






Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA)
(Case T-89/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NIAGARA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 211/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Niagara Bottling LLC (Ontario, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Jakab, A. Schifko and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 784/2014-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of the word mark NIAGARA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Niagara Bottling LLC to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8021 — Bridgepoint/Summit Partners/Calypso Technology) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, software








C_2016148EN.01001901.xml










27.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8021 — Bridgepoint/Summit Partners/Calypso Technology)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 148/07)






1.


On 19 April 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 undertakings Bridgepoint Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom) and Summit Partners L.P. (‘Summit Partners’, USA) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Calypso Technology, Inc. (‘Calypso Technology’, USA), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bridgepoint: private equity fund,
—   for Summit Partners: equity investment fund,
—   for Calypso Technology: provider of application software and services in the treasury and capital markets.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit 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.8021 — Bridgepoint/Summit Partners/Calypso Technology, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-190/16: Action brought on 27 April 2016 — Azarov v Council
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, abuse of power, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right of establishment, right to justice








C_2016222EN.01003001.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/30






Action brought on 27 April 2016 — Azarov v Council
(Case T-190/16)
(2016/C 222/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


terminate certain judicial measures, in particular:






—


questions to the Council;










—


the invitation to the Council to comment, in writing or orally, on certain aspects of the case;










—


requests for information to the Council and third parties, in particular to the Commission, EADS and Ukraine;










—


the invitation to submit documents or pieces of evidence in connection with the case;














—


order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: Infringement of basic rights
In the context of this plea in law, the applicant asserts the infringement of the right to property and the infringement of the freedom to conduct a business. In addition, he criticises the excessiveness of the restrictive measures imposed.










2.


Second plea in law: Abuse of discretion
In this regard, the applicant asserts inter alia that the Council misused its powers because, by imposing restrictive measures against the applicant, aims other than the consolidation and supporting of the rule of law and the respect of human rights in Ukraine were predominantly pursued.










3.


Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of sound administration
In the context of this plea in law, the applicant complains in particular of the infringement of the right to impartial treatment, the infringement of the right to just or fair treatment and the infringement of the right to a careful investigation of the facts.










4.


Fourth plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment
Case T-310/15: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant-protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of copper compounds on that list — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures — Inadmissible)
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, copper, legal basis, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, principle of proportionality








C_2016251EN.01003201.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/32





Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
(Case T-310/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Plant-protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of copper compounds on that list - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures - Inadmissible))
(2016/C 251/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015 L 67, p. 18).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Parliament and the Council.










3.


European Union Copper Task Force is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-614/11: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — GDC Engineering v Commission
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, financial loss, infringement of EU law, national law, tax system








C_2016222EN.01003501.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/35






Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — GDC Engineering v Commission
(Case T-614/11) (1)

(2016/C 222/43)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
Case C-244/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2016 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2016 in Case T-296/15, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. v Commission
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, plant health legislation, plant health product, right to justice








C_2016260EN.01002502.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/25





Appeal brought on 27 April 2016 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2016 in Case T-296/15, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. v Commission
(Case C-244/16 P)
(2016/C 260/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 February 2016 in Case T-296/15, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. (IQV) v European Commission;










—


declare as admissible IQV’s application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408; (1)











—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order to rule on the substance of Case T-296/15;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments







(i)


The General Court erred in law in holding, in the order under appeal, that the contested regulation is a regulatory act which includes, as regards the applicant, implementing measures for the purposes of Article 263(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.










(ii)


The General Court erred in law in holding, in the order under appeal, that the inadmissibility of IQV’s action against the contested regulation did not deprive it of an effective judicial remedy.










(iii)


The General Court erred in law in holding, in the order under appeal, that IQV was not individually affected by the contested regulation.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ L 67, p. 18).