do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-338/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2016 by Richard Zink against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 April 2016 in Case F-77/15, Zink v Commission
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, legality, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016305EN.01004601.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/46





Appeal brought on 22 June 2016 by Richard Zink against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 April 2016 in Case F-77/15, Zink v Commission
(Case T-338/16 P)
(2016/C 305/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Richard Zink (Bamako, Mali) (represented by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 in Case F-77/15 (Zink v Commission);










—


annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) to limit the payment of the expatriation allowance, which had been wrongly omitted since 1 September 2007, to a period of five years;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowances that he has been entitled to since 1 September 2007 plus default interest calculated at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points on the sums already paid to the applicant by way of arrears of remuneration (expatriation allowance) and on those sums still due, from their respective due date until full payment, subject to the deduction of the sums already paid;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the two instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 62 of the Statute.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the legality of acts of the Commission.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the limitation to five years of the arrears.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
Case F-31/16: Action brought on 22 June 2016 — ZZ v CEDEFOP
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, promotion








C_2016296EN.01004701.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/47





Action brought on 22 June 2016 — ZZ v CEDEFOP
(Case F-31/16)
(2016/C 296/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted under the 2015 annual promotion procedure at the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) and an application for damages in respect of the non-material and material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the appointing authority’s decision of non-promotion dated 4 November 2015 in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the CEDEFOP agency to pay compensation in respect of the harm suffered;










—


order CEDEFOP to pay the costs.
Case C-353/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 22 June 2016 — MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, cruel and degrading treatment, foreign national, removal, right of asylum, stateless person, third country, torture








C_2016326EN.01001602.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 22 June 2016 — MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Case C-353/16)
(2016/C 326/28)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MP

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Question referred

Does article 2(e), read with article 15(b), of EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) cover a real risk of serious harm to the physical or psychological health of the applicant if returned to the country of origin, resulting from previous torture or inhuman or degrading treatment for which the country of origin was responsible?


(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted

OJ L 304, p. 12
Case T-409/14: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union (Action for damages — Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, indemnification, rights of the defence








C_2016287EN.01002201.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/22





Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union
(Case T-409/14) (1)

((Action for damages - Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 287/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Placco, then J. Inghelram, P. Giusta and L. Tonini Alabiso, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the duration of the proceedings in Cases T-236/02, C-59/06 P and C-617/11 P.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility giving rise to the order of 9 January 2015 in Marcuccio v European Union (T-409/14, not published, EU:T:2015:18).










3.


Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to the remainder.






(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case C-267/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Input tax — Deduction)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building, economic activity, property development, property leasing, tax relief








C_2016314EN.01000601.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/6





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-267/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Input tax - Deduction))
(2016/C 314/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gemeente Woerden

Defendant: Staatsecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person has had a building constructed and has sold that building for a price less than the cost of constructing it, that taxable person is entitled to deduct all of the value added tax paid in respect of the construction of that building, and not only a part of that tax in proportion to the parts of the building which its purchaser uses for economic activities. The fact that that purchaser allows the building at issue to be used without charge is of no importance in that regard.


(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case C-11/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český rozhlas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth Directive 77/388/EC — Value added tax — Article 2(1) — Supply of services effected for consideration — Definition — Public broadcasting — Financing from a compulsory statutory fee)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, broadcasting, provision of services, public institution, tax exemption








C_2016314EN.01000301.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český rozhlas
(Case C-11/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth Directive 77/388/EC - Value added tax - Article 2(1) - Supply of services effected for consideration - Definition - Public broadcasting - Financing from a compulsory statutory fee))
(2016/C 314/04)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Defendant: Český rozhlas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that public broadcasting activities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, funded by a compulsory statutory charge paid by owners or possessors of a radio receiver and carried out by a radio broadcasting company created by law, do not constitute a supply of services ‘effected for consideration’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore fall outside the scope of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-255/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(f) and Article 10(2) — Partial reimbursement of the ticket price where a passenger is downgraded on a flight — Concepts of ‘ticket’ and ‘price of the ticket’ — Calculation of the reimbursement owed to the passenger)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air freight rate, air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, ticket








C_2016314EN.01000501.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland
(Case C-255/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(f) and Article 10(2) - Partial reimbursement of the ticket price where a passenger is downgraded on a flight - Concepts of ‘ticket’ and ‘price of the ticket’ - Calculation of the reimbursement owed to the passenger))
(2016/C 314/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Steef Mennens

Defendant: Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that where a passenger is downgraded on a flight, the price to be taken into account in determining the reimbursement for the passenger affected is the price of the flight on which he was downgraded unless that price is not indicated on the ticket entitling him to transport on that flight, in which case it must be based on the part of the price of the ticket corresponding to the quotient resulting from the distance of that flight and the total distance which the passenger is entitled to travel.










2.


Article 10(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, the price of the ticket to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the reimbursement owed to that passenger, where he is downgraded on a flight, is solely the price of the flight itself, to the exclusion of taxes and charges indicated on that ticket, as long as neither the requirement to pay those taxes and charges nor their amount depends on the class for which that ticket has been purchased.






(1)  OJ C 394, 7.9.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7970 — Air Liquide/OMZ/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, gas industry, heavy industry, mechanical engineering, merger control








C_2016225EN.01000101.xml










22.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7970 — Air Liquide/OMZ/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 225/01)
On 14 June 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 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 32016M7970. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-269/14: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Gain Capital UK v EUIPO — Citigroup (CITY INDEX)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, gaming, publishing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01005302.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/53





Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Gain Capital UK v EUIPO — Citigroup (CITY INDEX)
(Case T-269/14) (1)

(2016/C 305/72)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case C-207/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Nissan Jidosha KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Figurative mark including the element ‘CVTC’ — Requests for renewal made in respect of some of the goods or services for which the mark is registered — Further period — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 47 — Principle of legal certainty)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, principle of legal certainty, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01000402.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Nissan Jidosha KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-207/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Figurative mark including the element ‘CVTC’ - Requests for renewal made in respect of some of the goods or services for which the mark is registered - Further period - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 47 - Principle of legal certainty))
(2016/C 314/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Nissan Jidosha KK (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and D. Cañadas Arcas, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2015 in Nissan Jidosha v OHIM (CVTC) (T-572/12, not published, EU:T:2015:136);










2.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1), relating to a request for renewal of the registration of the European Union figurative mark CVTC;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nissan Jidosha KK both in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-572/12 and to the appeal.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case C-419/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 32 and 33 — Licence — Register of Community designs — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, designs and models








C_2016314EN.01000701.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/7





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH
(Case C-419/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 32 and 33 - Licence - Register of Community designs - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss))
(2016/C 314/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a registered Community design which is the subject of the licence although that licence has not been entered in the register of Community designs.










2.


Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design brought by it in accordance with that provision.






(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, plastics, toy industry








C_2016225EN.01000301.xml










22.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/3





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 225/04)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2016) 3549


16 June 2016


Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
EC No 204-211-0
CAS No 117-81-7







VinyLoop Ferrara S.p.A.




Via Marconi, 73




44100 Ferrara




Italy






REACH/16/2/0
REACH/16/2/3


Formulation of recycled soft poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) containing DEHP in compounds and dry-blends.
Industrial use of recycled soft PVC containing DEHP in polymer processing by calendering, extrusion, compression and injection moulding to produce PVC articles except: toys and childcare articles; erasers; adult toys (sex toys and other articles for adults with intensive contact with mucous membranes); household articles smaller than 10 cm that children can suck or chew on; consumer textiles/clothing intended to be worn against the bare skin; cosmetics and food contact materials regulated under sector-specific Union legislation.


21 February 2019


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicants and some of their downstream users.









Stena Recycling AB




Fiskhamnsgatan 8




400 40 Göteborg




Sweden






REACH/16/2/1
REACH/16/2/4









Plastic Planet srl




Via N. Copernico 16




35013 Cittadella




Italy






REACH/16/2/2
REACH/16/2/5






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm