do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-143/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Germany v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Financing of the additional labour and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by the remuneration for price-regulated services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of advantage — ‘Combus’ judgment — Demonstration of the existence of an economic and selective advantage — No such advantage)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, financing, postal and telecommunications services, reimbursement of aid, social cost, staff, wage cost








C_2016314EN.01001801.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/18





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-143/12) (1)

((State aid - Postal sector - Financing of the additional labour and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by the remuneration for price-regulated services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of advantage - ‘Combus’ judgment - Demonstration of the existence of an economic and selective advantage - No such advantage))
(2016/C 314/24)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze and K. Petersen, and subsequently T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents, and U. Soltész, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Case T-376/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial legislation, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), investment company








C_2016343EN.01004001.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/40





Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB
(Case T-376/16)
(2016/C 343/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Oberösterreichische Landesbank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which clearly is inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;










—


in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision










2.


Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision










3.


Third plea in law: insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016










4.


Fourth plea in law: illegality of the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017
Notice of open competition
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), servant (EU)








C_2016255EN.01000301.xml










14.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/3





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2016/C 255/03)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AST-SC/05/16 — ACCREDITATION OFFICERS/RECEPTIONISTS (SC 1/SC 2)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 255 A of 14 July 2016.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-371/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Preferisco Foods v EUIPO — Piccardo & Savore’ (PREFERISCO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PREFERISCO — Earlier EU word mark I PREFERITI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016392EN.01003602.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/36





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Preferisco Foods v EUIPO — Piccardo & Savore’ (PREFERISCO)
(Case T-371/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PREFERISCO - Earlier EU word mark I PREFERITI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 392/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Preferisco Foods Ltd (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Sidat Humphreys and J.-F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Piccardo & Savore’ Srl (Chiusavecchia, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2015 (Case R 2598/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Piccardo & Savore’ and Preferisco Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Preferisco Foods Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.