do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-122/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 2, 3 and 6 — Difference in treatment on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income — Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 — Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competence, European social policy, age discrimination, direct tax, equal treatment, pension scheme, personal income tax








C_2016287EN.01001101.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C
(Case C-122/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income - Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 - Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation))
(2016/C 287/14)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

C

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to a supplementary tax on pension income, does not fall within the substantive scope of that directive nor, therefore, is it covered by Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case T-281/16: Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, electrical energy, improvement of housing, invitation to tender








C_2016260EN.01004802.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/48





Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament
(Case T-281/16)
(2016/C 260/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Solelec SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Paul Wagner et fils SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Socom SA (Foetz, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul Decision No D(2016)14480 of 27 May 2016 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which the tender of the consortium ‘ELECTRO KAD’, formed by the companies SOLELEC S.A., MANNELLI & ASSOCIÉS S.A., PAUL WAGNER & FILS S.A. and SOCOM S.A., with regard to Lot 75 ‘electricity — high-voltage’ presented on 14 January 2016 in the context of call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-15-AO6 concerning the extension project and upgrade of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg was rejected and the decision that awarded the contract at issue to another tenderer;










—


Order production of the documents of the procurement file in which the contacts which were made between the Parliament and the tenderers were reported in accordance with Article 160(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the selection criteria, which were not fulfilled by the consortium that was awarded the contract in so far as one of its members did not have legal personality for the entire duration of the work and it was, it is claimed, impossible for the consortium awarded the contract to have the references relating to technical and professional capacity as required in the tender specifications.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the award criteria. By comparing the tender submitted by the applicants to that of the consortium that was awarded the contract, the latter would have been revealed to be abnormally low, which would have led the defendant to reject that tender and to award the contract to the applicants.
Joined Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Staywell Hospitality Group and Sheraton International IP v EUIPO — Sheraton International IP and Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark PARK REGIS — Earlier European Union figurative mark ST. REGIS — Partial refusal to register — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01002301.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/23





Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Staywell Hospitality Group and Sheraton International IP v EUIPO — Sheraton International IP and Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
(Joined Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark PARK REGIS - Earlier European Union figurative mark ST. REGIS - Partial refusal to register - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 251/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor, and A. Bryson, Barrister) (Case T-510/14); and Sheraton International IP, LLC (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer) (Case T-536/14)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Sheraton International IP, LLC (Case T-510/14); and Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Case T-536/14)

Re:

Actions brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 30 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Sheraton International IP and Staywell Hospitality Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14;










2.


In Case T-510/14, orders Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd to pay the costs;










3.


In Case T-536/14, orders Sheraton International IP, LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 June 2016 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2016195EN.01000401.xml










2.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/4





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 June 2016
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 June 2016
(2016/C 195/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1174 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,07 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4385 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77358 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2796 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1055 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3083 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,027 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3978 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5178 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2938 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5370 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4586 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6818 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6373 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5375 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,53 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5384 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3498 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5118 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 273,74 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6409 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,110 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,7806 




THB


Thai baht


39,846 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0211 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6531 




INR


Indian rupee


75,3780 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-315/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2016 — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, division of property, financial aid, forestry development, forestry property, fund (EU), rural development, sustainable forest management








C_2016296EN.01002102.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2016 — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter
(Case C-315/16)
(2016/C 296/28)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: József Lingurár

Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

Questions referred









1.


Is Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) (‘Regulation No 1698/2005’) — also taking into account Article 46 — to be interpreted as not wholly precluding individuals from aid for the sustainable use of forest land where the land is also partly State owned?












2.


If aid is not wholly precluded, is Article 46 of Regulation No 1698/2005 to be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the land concerned — which is partly State owned — the private forester or private owner is entitled to aid in proportion to his share of ownership?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1)
Case T-286/16: Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (Toilet Lid)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, toiletries








C_2016260EN.01005001.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/50





Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (Toilet Lid)
(Case T-286/16)
(2016/C 260/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Ernst Kneidinger (Wilhering, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topseat International (Plano, Texas, USA)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 2274035-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2016 in Case R 1030/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs — in particular the cost of the pleadings and the further costs of any possible oral proceedings and travel costs — and the costs incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case C-319/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ukraine, abuse of power, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017006EN.01002402.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/24





Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council
(Case C-319/16 P)
(2017/C 006/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission
By order of 5 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-31/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, ceramics, household article, import (EU), originating product








C_2016287EN.01000901.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/9





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV
(Case C-31/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty))
(2016/C 287/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented initially by B. Driessen and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (represented by: R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Case C-252/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Taxation of pension funds’ income — Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds — Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield — Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds — Whether comparable)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: deduction at source, equal treatment, establishment, free movement of capital, shareholder, supplementary pension, tax on income








C_2016287EN.01000401.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/4





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket
(Case C-252/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Taxation of pension funds’ income - Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds - Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield - Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds - Whether comparable))
(2016/C 287/05)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as:






—


not precluding national legislation under which the dividends distributed by a resident company are subject to a tax levied at source (a withholding tax) where those dividends are paid to a non-resident pension fund and, where those dividends are paid to a resident pension fund, to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a notional yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital under the general law regime;










—


nevertheless precluding non-resident pension funds being prevented from taking into account any professional expenses directly linked to the receipt of dividends, where the calculation method for the tax base of resident pension funds allows them to be taken into account, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case T-654/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01002401.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/24





Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION)
(Case T-654/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 251/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Revolution LLC (Washington DC, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2143/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REVOLUTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Revolution LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
Case F-41/10 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Bermejo Garde v EESC (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Official who has been the victim of harassment — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Official, whistleblower — Request for assistance — Rejection — Right to protection — Conditions — Rejection — Consequences — Application for compensation)
Date: 2016-06-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, indemnification, interest, professional career, psychological harassment, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016251EN.01004801.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/48





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
(Case F-41/10 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Official who has been the victim of harassment - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Official, whistleblower - Request for assistance - Rejection - Right to protection - Conditions - Rejection - Consequences - Application for compensation))
(2016/C 251/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee EESC (represented by: initially U. Schwab and M. Lernhart, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, then K. Gambino, acting as Agent, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, finally K. Gambino and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of several decisions terminating the applicant’s service as the Head of Unit of the Legal Service with immediate effect, reassigning him to the Directorate for Logistics and refusing his formal application for assistance and the application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Annuls the decisions of the President of the European Economic and Social Committee of 24 March 2010 terminating Mr Moises Bermejo Garde’s previous duties as Head of Unit of the Legal Service and of 13 April 2010 relating to his reassignment;










2)


Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to pay Mr Bermejo Garde the sum of EUR 25 000;










3)


Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Bermejo Garde in Cases F-41/10, T-530/12 P and F-41/10 RENV.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31/7/2010, p. 55.