do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-359/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — Ömer Altun and Others, Absa NV and Others v Openbaar Ministerie
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, expatriate worker, fraud, free movement of workers, social legislation, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation








C_2016335EN.01003802.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/38





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — Ömer Altun and Others, Absa NV and Others v Openbaar Ministerie
(Case C-359/16)
(2016/C 335/52)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

Respondent: Openbaar Ministerie

Question referred

Can an E101 certificate issued under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as applicable before its repeal by Article 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, be annulled or disregarded by a court other than that of the sending Member State if the facts which are submitted to its scrutiny support the conclusion that the certificate was obtained or invoked fraudulently?


(1)  (OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).
Case T-319/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — BASF Antwerpen v Commission
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, abuse of power, control of State aid, corporation tax, fiscal policy, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016305EN.01004301.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/43





Action brought on 24 June 2016 — BASF Antwerpen v Commission
(Case T-319/16)
(2016/C 305/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BASF Antwerpen NV (Antwerpen, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.
Case F-142/11 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016 —Simpson v Council (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Officials — Upgrade — Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, indemnification, pay scale, promotion, translation








C_2016287EN.01003601.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/36





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016 —Simpson v Council
(Case F-142/11 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Officials - Upgrade - Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Obligation to state grounds - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 287/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 after he had been successful in competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD 9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Mr Simpson shall bear his own costs in Cases F-142/11, T-130/14 P and F-142/11 RENV respectively and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F-142/11.










3.


The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs in Cases T-130/14 P and F 142/11 RENV.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 26 (initial case).
Case T-320/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER)
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, education, information service, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016296EN.01002801.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/28





Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER)
(Case T-320/16)
(2016/C 296/37)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Make up for ever (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ — EU trade mark No 3 416 443

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 985/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the Community word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ No 003416443 valid for all of the goods and services remaining referred to in the application;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


remit the case to EUIPO for further prosecution if necessary;










—


render the company l’OREAL liable for the costs resulting from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the present action before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: European Commission, Innovation and Networks Executive Agency
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, executive agency, financial year, general budget (EU), innovation, publication of accounts, trans-European network








C_2016230EN.01000801.xml










24.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/8





Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
(2016/C 230/03)

REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1






EUROPEAN UNION CONTRIBUTION





1 0


EUROPEAN UNION CONTRIBUTION


24 013 018 


–1 508 396 


22 504 622 




 



Title 1 — Total




24 013 018 




–1 508 396 




22 504 622 






2






PARTICIPATION OF THIRD COUNTRIES





2 0


PARTICIPATION OF EFTA COUNTRIES IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY


261 378 


 


261 378 




 



Title 2 — Total




261 378 



 



261 378 





 



GRAND TOTAL




24 274 396 




–1 508 396 




22 766 000 






EXPENDITURE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1






STAFF EXPENDITURES





1 1


REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES


16 086 000 


185 000 


16 271 000 




1 2


SOCIOMEDICAL AND TRAINING EXPENDITURE


1 176 000 


–80 000 


1 096 000 




 



Title 1 — Total




17 262 000 




105 000 




17 367 000 






2






INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE





2 1


BUILDING EXPENDITURE


4 122 000 


–1 291 000 


2 831 000 




2 2


ICT


1 158 000 


– 316 000 


842 000 




2 3


MOVABLE PROPERTY AND CURRENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE


135 000 


47 000 


182 000 




 



Title 2 — Total




5 415 000 




–1 560 000 




3 855 000 






3






PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE





3 1


PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE


1 597 000 


–53 000 


1 544 000 




 



Title 3 — Total




1 597 000 




–53 000 




1 544 000 





 



GRAND TOTAL




24 274 000 




–1 508 000 




22 766 000
Case T-321/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Ansell Healthcare Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, medical device, profit, protective equipment, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption








C_2016296EN.01002901.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/29





Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Ansell Healthcare Europe v Commission
(Case T-321/16)
(2016/C 296/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ansell Healthcare Europe NV (Anderlecht, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.
Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2015 — amending budget No 1 (OJ C 164, 19.5.2015)
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: European GNSS Agency
Subjects: EU expenditure, European GNSS Agency, amending budget, budgetary resources, publication of accounts








C_2016230EN.01002401.xml










24.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/24





Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2015 — amending budget No 1
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 164 of 19 May 2015
)
(2016/C 230/07)
On page 15, the table is replaced by the following:

‘REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2015


Amending budget No 1


New amount





2






PAYMENTS FROM THE INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES





2 0


PAYMENTS FROM THE INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES


26 840 000 


766 414 


27 606 414 




 



Title 2 — Total




26 840 000 




766 414 




27 606 414 






9






MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE





9 0


MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE


p.m.


 


p.m.




 



Title 9 — Total




p.m.



 



p.m.





 



GRAND TOTAL




26 840 000 




766 414 




27 606 414 ’
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016228EN.01000101.xml










24.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 June 2016
(2016/C 228/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1389 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,38 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4396 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,76595 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3030 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0876 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2993 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,062 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,28 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3571 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5114 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2692 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5060 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4517 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8351 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5763 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5252 




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,47 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4651 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4935 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5210 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 961,77 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5469 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,879 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,9548 




THB


Thai baht


40,101 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8172 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8305 




INR


Indian rupee


76,6510 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-351/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by 100 % Capri Italia Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016 in Case T-198/14, Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri)
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01001901.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/19






Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by 100 % Capri Italia Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016 in Case T-198/14, Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri)

(Case C-351/16 P)
(2017/C 014/24)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: 100 % Capri Italia Srl (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti, F. Braga, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI)
By order of 10 November 2016, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered 100 % Capri Italia Srl to bear its own costs.
Case C-349/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — T.KUP SAS v Belgische Staat
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Macao, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), originating product








C_2016335EN.01003501.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/35





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — T.KUP SAS v Belgische Staat
(Case C-349/16)
(2016/C 335/47)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T.KUP SAS

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Is Regulation No 1294/2009 (1) invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present case, on the ground of infringement of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation, (2) given that the Commission, in its review, used a sample of only eight importers, notwithstanding the fact that a manageable number of 21 importers ought to have been examined?










2.


Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of the third subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, did not take sufficient account of the evidence supplied in that it included five large importers in the sample as against only three small importers, and in that it primarily took into account the information provided by the five large importers?










3.


Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of the basic regulation and/or of Article 11(2), (5) and (9) of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, had before it inadequate information to enable it to determine that there were continued imports resulting in dumping and injury?










4.


Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of Article 21 of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, requires that there be specific indications that an importer is being disproportionately burdened by an extension?






(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8080 — Maxburg II/VREP/Norafin) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, textile industry








C_2016228EN.01000201.xml










24.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8080 — Maxburg II/VREP/Norafin)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 228/02)






1.


On 16 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 undertakings Maxburg Beteiligungen II GmbH & Co. KG (‘Maxburg II’, Germany), belonging to the RAG-Stiftung group (‘RAG’, Germany), and VR Equitypartner GmbH (‘VREP’, Germany), belonging to DZ Bank AG group (‘DZ Bank group’, Germany), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Norafin Verwaltungs GmbH including its operational subsidiaries (‘Norafin’, Germany), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Maxburg II: private equity firm investing primarily in medium-sized companies in German-speaking countries. Maxburg II belongs to the RAG, which is essentially active in coal mining, chemistry and real estate businesses. RAG is the main shareholder of Evonik Industries AG (Germany) which produces and sells specialty chemicals and high-performance materials,
—   for VREP: private equity firm investing primarily in interests in medium-sized companies in German-speaking countries. VREP belongs to the DZ BANK group which serves as a central bank for its shareholders (cooperative banks) but is also active as a corporate bank,
—   for Norafin: development, production and distribution of engineered fabrics, specialty and technical nonwovens and composites.










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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










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.8080 — Maxburg II/VREP/Norafin, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.