do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-496/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission (Appeal — Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Rights of the defence — Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations — Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Principle of proportionality — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, pay scale, principle of proportionality, promotion, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016232EN.01002001.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/20





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission
(Case T-496/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Rights of the defence - Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations - Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Principle of proportionality - Manifest error of assessment))
(2016/C 232/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: CX (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, CX v Commission (F-27/13, EU:F:2015:60), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders CX to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016172EN.01000201.xml










13.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 May 2016
(2016/C 172/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1389 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,50 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4407 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78888 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2945 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1063 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2320 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,023 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,91 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4193 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4998 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3569 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5541 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4594 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8378 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6724 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5620 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,57 




ZAR


South African rand


17,0732 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4242 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5030 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 131,14 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5704 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,015 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,7430 




THB


Thai baht


40,266 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9419 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,3883 




INR


Indian rupee


75,9290 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-241/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cleaning industry, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01004001.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/40





Action brought on 13 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)
(Case T-241/16)
(2016/C 251/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘EW’ — Application for registration No 12 326 468

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2016 in Case R 426/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-246/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Aurora Group Danmark A/S v EUIPO — Retail Distribution ApS (PANZER)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, mobile phone, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016279EN.01003101.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/31





Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Aurora Group Danmark A/S v EUIPO — Retail Distribution ApS (PANZER)
(Case T-246/16)
(2016/C 279/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: Danish

Parties


Applicant: Aurora Group Danmark A/S (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: L. Elmgaard Sørensen)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Distribution ApS (Hinnerup, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘PANZER’ — European Union trade mark No 12 111 084

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Case R 447/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision in respect of ‘Computers, mobile phones, smart phones and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; phone charms; scratch protectors; protective casing and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; holders, cases and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; parts, fittings and accessories for mobiles phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files’;










—


Order the EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Set aside Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-24/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, appointment of members, remuneration of work








C_2016251EN.01005102.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/51





Action brought on 13 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-24/16)
(2016/C 251/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the request for the defendant to provide the applicant with the revised calculation of the latter’s financial entitlements following his resignation from the Commission in 2000.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 15 March 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-274/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air law, air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2016343EN.01002201.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA
(Case C-274/16)
(2016/C 343/33)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

Question referred

In the case where passengers are transported on a flight which consists of two connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the place of arrival of the second leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place of performance under Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 (1) in the case where the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated the first leg of the journey on which the irregularity took place and transport on the second leg of the journey was carried out by a different air carrier?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Case C-270/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disabled person, discrimination based on disability, dismissal, equal treatment, worker with disabilities








C_2016279EN.01001801.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal
(Case C-270/16)
(2016/C 279/24)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero

Defendants: Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal

Question referred

Does Directive 2000/78 (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law under which an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee on objective grounds for absences from work, albeit justified but intermittent, which amount to 20 % of the employee’s working hours in two consecutive months, provided that the total absences in the previous 12 months amount to 5 % of working hours or 25 % of working hours in four non-consecutive months within a 12-month period, in the case of an employee who must be treated as disabled within the meaning of the directive when his absence from work was caused by his disability?


(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Statement of the European Parliament and of the Commission on the occasion of the adoption of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: drafting of EU law, institutional balance (EU), interinstitutional agreement, interinstitutional cooperation (EU)








L_2016124EN.01000101.xml










13.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 124/1








            STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COMMISSION ON THE OCCASION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT ON BETTER LAW-MAKING OF 13 APRIL 2016
            
         

The European Parliament and the Commission consider that the Agreement (1) reflects the balance between, and respective competences of, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission as set out in the Treaties.
It is without prejudice to the Framework Agreement of 20 October 2010 on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (2).


(1)  
            OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.
Case T-601/15: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CEVA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’ — SEABIOPLAS contract — Demand for payment of the financial contribution due — Offsetting — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, claim, financial aid, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, research project








C_2016251EN.01003202.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/32





Order of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CEVA v Commission
(Case T-601/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’ - SEABIOPLAS contract - Demand for payment of the financial contribution due - Offsetting - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 251/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission pay the first instalment of the grant due to the applicant under the SEABIOPLAS contract (reference FP7-SME-2013-606032-SEABIOPLAS) concerning a technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015
Case C-273/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, customs duties, distributive trades, import, provision of services








C_2016343EN.01002101.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.
(Case C-273/16)
(2016/C 343/32)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law and cross-respondent on a point of law: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent on a point of law and cross-appellant on a point of law: Federal Express Europe Inc.

Question referred

Can Articles 144 and 86(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) (corresponding to Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 11.B(3) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (2)), taken together, be interpreted to mean that the only condition in order for connected services consisting of the ‘inbound’ transport service — from airports to the place of destination within the territory of the Member State, with the ‘free-at-destination’ clause — not to be liable to VAT is that their value is included in the taxable amount, regardless of whether or not the goods in question were in fact subject to customs duties, at the time of their importation; and is it therefore incompatible with those EU-law provisions if the domestic rules laid down in Articles 9(1).2 and 69(1) of Presidential Decree No 33 of 26 October 1972, read together in the versions in force at the time of the material facts, provide that in every case, and therefore also in the case of imports that are not liable to VAT — as is the case here, since it concerns documents and goods of negligible value — there has to be compliance with the additional requirement that those imports must in fact be liable to VAT (and customs duty must in fact be paid) at the time of the importation of such goods, even, if need be, when account is taken of the ancillary nature of the transport services in relation to the main services (namely the importation) and of the rationale of simplification underlying both the main and the ancillary operations?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Case T-312/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON — Earlier national word mark MIVACRON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001901.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/19





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)
(Case T-312/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON - Earlier national word mark MIVACRON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 232/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2015 (Case R 507/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.