do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of 24 May 2016 in Case E-2/16 — Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Preliminary objection to admissibility — Refusal to commence infringement proceedings — Directive 2002/47/EC — Challengeable measures — Time limit — Admissibility)
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, infringement procedure (EU), reinsurance








C_2017066EN.01003102.xml










2.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 66/31





ORDER OF THE COURT
of 24 May 2016
in Case E-2/16
Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Preliminary objection to admissibility — Refusal to commence infringement proceedings — Directive 2002/47/EC — Challengeable measures — Time limit — Admissibility)
(2017/C 66/11)
In Case E-2/16, Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under Article 36(2) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015 on financial collateral arrangements in Liechtenstein, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave order of 24 May 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The application is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The applicant is to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/819 of 24 May 2016 amending Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, vessel








L_2016136EN.01000801.xml










25.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 136/8








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/819
of 24 May 2016
         
amending Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (1),


Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (2), and in particular Article 20(b) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex V to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 lists vessels designated by the UN Sanctions Committee as referred to in paragraph 11 of UNSCR 2146 (2014), which are covered by a number of prohibitions under that Regulation, including to load, transport or discharge crude oil from Libya, to access ports in the territory of the Union, and the provision of bunkering or ship supply services.












(2)


On 12 May 2016, the United Nations Security Council Committee, deleted the vessel Distya Ameya from the list of vessels subject to restrictive measures. On 23 May 2016, the Council decided to remove the vessel from Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.












(3)


Therefore, Annex V to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 should be amended accordingly.












(4)


In order to implement this delisting, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex V to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 May 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

(2)  
            OJ L 12 19.1.2016, p. 1.




ANNEX
Annex V to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 is replaced by the following:



                     ‘ANNEX V’
Case C-353/15: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Bari — Italy) — Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone v Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 3(1) and (2) — Insolvency proceedings — International jurisdiction — Centre of a debtor’s main interests — Transfer of a company’s registered office to another Member State — No establishment in the Member State of origin — Presumption that the centre of main interests is the place of the new registered office — Proof to the contrary)
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, residence








C_2016326EN.01000401.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/4





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Bari — Italy) — Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone v Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH and Others
(Case C-353/15) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) and (2) - Insolvency proceedings - International jurisdiction - Centre of a debtor’s main interests - Transfer of a company’s registered office to another Member State - No establishment in the Member State of origin - Presumption that the centre of main interests is the place of the new registered office - Proof to the contrary))
(2016/C 326/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di Appello di Bari

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Leonmobili Srl, Gennaro Leone

Defendants: Homag Holzbearbeitungssysteme GmbH, Curatela del Fallimento Leonmobili Srl, ICO Srl, Arturo Salice SpA, Grafiche Ricciarelli di Ricciarelli Bernardino, Deutsche Bank SpA, Fida Srl, Elica SpA

Operative part of the order

Article 3(1) of Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, where a company’s registered office has been transferred from one Member State to another Member State, the court seised, subsequent to that transfer, of an application to open insolvency proceedings in the Member State of origin may disregard the presumption that that company’s centre of main interests is situated at the place of the new registered office and find that the centre of those interests remained, as at the date on which that application was brought before it, in that Member State of origin, although the company no longer had an establishment there, only if it is apparent from other objective evidence, ascertainable by third parties, that, nonetheless, the company’s actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests was still located there at that date.


(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case C-108/16 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Pawel Dworzecki (Request for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 4a(1) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions of execution — Reasons for optional non-execution — Exceptions — Mandatory execution — Sentence handed down in absentia — Concepts of ‘summons in person’ and ‘official notification by other means — Autonomous concepts of EU law)
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, extradition








C_2016260EN.01001301.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/13





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Pawel Dworzecki
(Case C-108/16 PPU) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4a(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions of execution - Reasons for optional non-execution - Exceptions - Mandatory execution - Sentence handed down in absentia - Concepts of ‘summons in person’ and ‘official notification by other means - Autonomous concepts of EU law))
(2016/C 260/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Pawel Dworzecki

Operative part of the judgment







1.


1.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Council Framework Directive 2002/584/JHA of 13 February 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘summoned in person’ and ‘by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’ in that provision constitute autonomous concepts of EU law and must be interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union.










2.


2.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a summons, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was not served directly on the person concerned but was handed over, at the latter’s address, to an adult belonging to that household who undertook to pass it on to him, when it cannot be ascertained from the European arrest warrant whether and, if so, when that adult actually passed that summons on to the person concerned, does not in itself satisfy the conditions set out in that provision.






(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
Case T-126/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Supeco — Earlier EU figurative mark SUPER COR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal — Goods and services on which the opposition is based — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Communication No 2/12)
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chain store, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01003102.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/31





Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)
(Case T-126/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Supeco - Earlier EU figurative mark SUPER COR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal - Goods and services on which the opposition is based - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Communication No 2/12))
(2016/C 243/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: E. Scheffer and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grup Supeco Maxor, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1112/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Grup Supeco Maxor, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Case C-396/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from Klagenævnet for Udbud — Denmark) — MT Højgaard A/S, Züblin A/S v Banedanmark (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Status of the referring body as a court or tribunal — Procurement procedure in railway infrastructure sector — Negotiated procedure — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 10 — Article 51(3) — Principle of equal treatment of tenderers — Group composed of two companies and admitted as such as a tenderer — Tender submitted by one of the two companies, in its own name, the other company having been declared insolvent — Company considered to be capable, by itself, of being admitted as a tenderer — Contract awarded to that company)
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, group of companies, invitation to tender, liquidation, rail network








C_2016260EN.01000301.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from Klagenævnet for Udbud — Denmark) — MT Højgaard A/S, Züblin A/S v Banedanmark
(Case C-396/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Status of the referring body as a court or tribunal - Procurement procedure in railway infrastructure sector - Negotiated procedure - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 10 - Article 51(3) - Principle of equal treatment of tenderers - Group composed of two companies and admitted as such as a tenderer - Tender submitted by one of the two companies, in its own name, the other company having been declared insolvent - Company considered to be capable, by itself, of being admitted as a tenderer - Contract awarded to that company))
(2016/C 260/03)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Klagenævnet for Udbud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: MT Højgaard A/S, Züblin A/S

Defendant: Banedanmark

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of equal treatment of economic operators, stated in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, read together with Article 51 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity is not in breach of that principle where it permits one of two economic operators who formed part of a group of undertakings that had, as such, been invited to submit tenders by that contracting entity, to take the place of that group following the group’s dissolution and to take part, in its own name, in a negotiated procedure for the award of a public contract, provided that it is established, first, that that economic operator by itself meets the requirements laid down by the contracting entity and, second, that the continuation of its participation in that procedure does not mean that other tenderers are placed at a competitive disadvantage.


(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/846 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2016 appointing Judges to the General Court
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2016141EN.01007601.xml










28.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 141/76








            DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/846 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 24 May 2016
         
appointing Judges to the General Court


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Article 48 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), provides that the General Court consists of 40 Judges as from 25 December 2015. Article 2(a) of that Regulation determines the term of office of the 12 additional Judges in such a way that the end of their term of office corresponds to the partial replacements of the General Court which will take place on 1 September 2016 and 1 September 2019.












(2)


Ms Inga REINE, Mr Fredrik SCHALIN and Mr Peter George XUEREB have been nominated for the posts of additional Judges at the General Court.












(3)


The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Ms Inga REINE, Mr Fredrik SCHALIN and Mr Peter George XUEREB to perform the duties of Judges of the General Court,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed Judges of the General Court for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 31 August 2019:






—


Ms Inga REINE,










—


Mr Fredrik SCHALIN,










—


Mr Peter George XUEREB.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 24 May 2016.


The President

P. DE GOOIJER
            





(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, p. 14).
Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/847 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2016 appointing a Judge to the General Court
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2016141EN.01007701.xml










28.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 141/77








            DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/847 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 24 May 2016
         
appointing a Judge to the General Court


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The terms of office of 14 Judges of the General Court are due to expire on 31 August 2016. Appointments should therefore be made for the period from 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2022.












(2)


It has been proposed that the term of office of Mr Lauri MADISE should be renewed.












(3)


The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr Lauri MADISE to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Lauri MADISE is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2022.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 24 May 2016.


The President

P. DE GOOIJER
Case C-289/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, direct selling, labelling, organic farming, organic product, storage








C_2016350EN.01001401.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.
(Case C-289/16)
(2016/C 350/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

Question referred

Is there already a ‘direct’ sale to the final customer within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (1) where the operator or his sales personnel sells the products to the final customer without the intervention of a third party, or does a ‘direct’ sale additionally require that the sale occurs at the place where the products are stored when both the operator or his sales personnel and the final consumer are present at the same time?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7992 — Starwood Capital Group/Banco Sabadell/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control, real property








C_2016185EN.01000101.xml










24.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7992 — Starwood Capital Group/Banco Sabadell/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 185/01)
On 17 May 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 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 32016M7992. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.