do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-133/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 10 June 2016 — HI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 11 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of loyalty — Article 11a — Conflict of interests — Official responsible for monitoring a project funded by the European Union — Family link between that official and an employee recruited for the purposes of the project by the company responsible for that project — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary action — Downgrading — Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Board — Obligation to state reasons — Length of the procedure — Reasonable time — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Principle of ne bis in idem — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality of the penalty — Mitigating circumstances)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, conflict of interest, demotion, disciplinary proceedings, indemnification, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016270EN.01006901.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/69





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 10 June 2016 — HI v Commission
(Case F-133/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 11 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of loyalty - Article 11a - Conflict of interests - Official responsible for monitoring a project funded by the European Union - Family link between that official and an employee recruited for the purposes of the project by the company responsible for that project - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary action - Downgrading - Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Board - Obligation to state reasons - Length of the procedure - Reasonable time - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Principle of ne bis in idem - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality of the penalty - Mitigating circumstances))
(2016/C 270/76)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose on the applicant, following an investigation concerning a conflict of interest, a penalty of permanent downgrading by two grades, and for compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders HI to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 45.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7904 — Bekaert/OTPP/Bridon Bekaert Ropes JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control








C_2016207EN.01000101.xml










10.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7904 — Bekaert/OTPP/Bridon Bekaert Ropes JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 207/01)
On 22 April 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 32016M7904. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-302/16: Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, disciplinary proceedings, equal treatment, parliamentary allowance, parliamentary vote, right to justice








C_2016279EN.01004001.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/40





Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament
(Case T-302/16)
(2016/C 279/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nicolas Bay (La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Cuignache, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:
in limine litis,






—


annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016;










—


annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016;
in substance,










—


withdraw the penalty imposed by the decision of 11 April 2016.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial.










2.


Second plea in law: lack of material evidence which could demonstrate the allegations against the applicant and, in particular, the applicant’s use of another Member of the European Parliament’s voting card.










3.


Third plea in law: inconsistency and inadmissibility of the testimonies on which the penalty imposed on the applicant is based.










4.


Fourth plea in law: the physical impossibility of the applicant voting in the place of another Member of the European Parliament.
Case T-494/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Klymenko v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016305EN.01003401.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/34





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Klymenko v Council
(Case T-494/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))
(2016/C 305/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Oleksandr Klymenko (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Shaw QC, and I. Quirk, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Oleksandr Klymenko.










2.


The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Klymenko.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7975 — Mylan/Meda) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2016207EN.01001501.xml










10.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/15





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7975 — Mylan/Meda)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 207/07)






1.


On 1 June 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 undertaking Mylan NV (the Netherlands, ‘Mylan’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Meda AB (Sweden, ‘Meda’) by way of public bid announcement.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.










—


Meda is an international speciality company that manufactures and distributes pharmaceuticals.














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.










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.7975 — Mylan/Meda, 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’).
Case T-381/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, personal data








C_2016279EN.01002602.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/26





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council
(Case T-381/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))
(2016/C 279/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka.










2.


The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AD/302/15 — Administrators (AD 5) in the field of audit
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, accountant, administrator, auditing, competition (EU)








CA2016207EN.01000101.xml










10.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 207/1





RESERVE LIST (1)

Open competition EPSO/AD/302/15 — Administrators (AD 5) in the field of audit
(2016/C 207 A/01)
 






ACHLEITNER


Florian




ALVAREZ SANTOS


Silvia




ANDRASIC


Slaven




AUFFRET


Anne




BECKER


Martin




BENELLI


Filippo




BERGER


Christian




BISCHUR


Rosina




BLAAS


Matthias




BOLSI


Paolo




BOULANGER


Joel




BRČINA


Tihomir




BURGAUD


Celine




BURJA


Claudia Cristina




BURTON


Julien




CABRERA RUIZ


Ardiel




CARRETERO LLORENTE


Francisco De Asís




CHAZELAS-BAUR (CHAZELAS)


Céline




CREVILLÉN


Abraham




DAVILA DIAZ


Gregorio




DE MELO PONCE


Germán




DE OLIVEIRA MAGALHAES


Ines




DELOURME


Thibaud




DI MARCO


Flavia




ESPOSITO


Chiara




GAVALYUGOVA


Nevena




GIL RODRIGUEZ


Laura




GIRAULT


Aurélie




GOMEZ


Jose Enrique




GUIRADO BORREGO


Samuel




HAGIANU


Stefan Razvan




HAUF


Michaela Maria




HELD


Markus




IONESCU


Razvan Cristian




JUDGE


Niall




KARAMALAKOVA


Galina




KASPEREK


Agnieszka Maria




KOLYVA


Myrto




KYPARISSIDIS


Anastasios




LAI


Antonio




LIAPI


Panagiota




LITT


Constanze Maria




LOCK


Christopher




LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ


Juan




MARTÍNEZ


Bernardo




MAURO


Valentina




MELLADO IGLESIAS


David




MENDEZ DEL RIO CABRA


Lucia




MIGLIORELLI


Marco




MITRAKIS


Nikolaos




MORANDINI


Maria Chiara




MORENO HAYA


Beatriz




MOSCA


Marie-Pierre




MOYA ALARCON


Sergio




MUGICA MARTINEZ DE AGUIRRE


Maider




OGRIZ


Vesna




OSIAC


Roxana




PICCINI


Roberto




POJAR


Simona




PROIA


Alessandro




PÉREZ-ARANDA ALONSO


Leonardo Iván




RADVANSKA


Renata




RANUCCI


Marcello




RAVERA


Luca




ROESSING NETO


Ernesto




SAMARAS


Vassilis




SANMARTIN SOLA


Ramon




STYLIANOUDAKIS


Eleftherios




THOMSEN


Katrine Mulvad




TOPLICANEC


Martina




TURČAN


Martin




VAN WESEMAEL


Stijn




The reserve lists will be valid until 30 June 2017.


(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request that her/his name not be published.
Case T-380/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action)
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2016335EN.01004501.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/45





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council
(Case T-380/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))
(2016/C 335/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka.










2.


The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Case T-456/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — British Telecommunications v Commission
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, telecommunications industry, transmission network








C_2016314EN.01003501.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/35





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — British Telecommunications v Commission
(Case T-456/12) (1)

(2016/C 314/47)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016207EN.01000201.xml










10.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 June 2016
(2016/C 207/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1343 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,72 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4362 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78438 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2433 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0916 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2489 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,44 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3321 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5095 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2850 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5250 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4459 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8047 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5936 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5336 




KRW


South Korean won


1 316,56 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8160 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4405 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5360 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 073,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5911 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,188 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,8220 




THB


Thai baht


39,950 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8378 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6766 




INR


Indian rupee


75,6925 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-327/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Marc Jacob v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, capital gains tax, residence, share, taxpayer








C_2016305EN.01001701.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Marc Jacob v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
(Case C-327/16)
(2016/C 305/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Marc Jacob

Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 8 of Directive [90/434/EEC] of 23 July 1990 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits, in the event of an exchange of shares falling within the scope of the directive, a mechanism for deferred taxation which provides, by way of derogation from the rule that the chargeable event for capital gains tax purposes occurs during the year in which the gain arises, that the capital gain on the exchange is established and settled on the exchange of the shares, and taxed in the year in which the event putting an end to the deferred taxation occurs, which may, for instance, be the transfer of the shares that were received at the time of the exchange?










2.


Must Article 8 of Directive [90/434/EEC] be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits, in the event of an exchange of shares falling within the scope of the directive, the capital gain on the exchange of the shares — supposing it to be taxable — from being taxed by the State in which the taxpayer was resident at the time of the exchange, when the taxpayer, at the time the shares received on that exchange are transferred (at which time the capital gain on the exchange is actually taxed), has moved his residence for tax purposes to another Member State?






(1)  Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1).
Case T-460/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission
Date: 2016-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, telecommunications industry, transmission network








C_2016314EN.01003502.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/35





Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission
(Case T-460/12) (1)

(2016/C 314/48)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.