do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision of 18 July 2016 appointing a member and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Romania
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Romania, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, occupational safety








C_2016261EN.01000201.xml










19.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 18 July 2016
appointing a member and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Romania
(2016/C 261/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decisions of 24 February 2016 (2), 11 April 2016 (3) and 9 June 2016 (4) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 29 February 2016 to 28 February 2019.










(2)


The government of Romania has submitted further nominations for three posts to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The following are hereby appointed as member and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2019:
TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Member


Alternates




Romania


Ms Mihaela DARLE


Mr Corneliu CONSTANTINOAIA
Mr Dumitru FORNEA




Article 2
The Council will appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 18 July 2016.


For the Council


The President

Gabriela MATEČNÁ




(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 24 February 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 79, 1.3.2016, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision of 11 April 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Greece, Hungary and Sweden (OJ C 130, 13.4.2016, p. 3).

(4)  Council Decision of 9 June 2016 appointing a member and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Romania (OJ C 214, 15.6.2016, p. 2).
Case T-72/12: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Annulment of the contested acts — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, arms control, bank, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, trade restriction








C_2016343EN.01003801.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/38





Order of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council
(Case T-72/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Annulment of the contested acts - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 343/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran (Iran)) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons and entities to whom those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association.










3.


Bank Mellat, the Council of the European Union, Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case C-398/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, capital increase, interest, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2016371EN.01000402.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-398/16)
(2016/C 371/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: X BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct interest in respect of a loan associated with a capital contribution made to a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas that deduction could have been availed of if that subsidiary had been included with that parent company in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of a Netherlands single tax entity — in view of the fact that, in that case, by reason of consolidation, there would be no obvious association with such a capital contribution?
Case T-266/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission (Public service contracts — Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Libya, award of contract, border control, invitation to tender, security services, services contract








C_2016314EN.01001901.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/19





Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission
(Case T-266/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 314/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Union Assistance Mission (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case F-143/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Dietrich v Parliament (Civil service — Contract staff — Early termination of the contract — Expiry date of the notice period — Suspension of the notice period — New expiry date of the notice period — Act not having an adverse effect — Complaint lodged out of time — Plea of inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), termination of employment, work contract








C_2016364EN.01005701.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/57






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Dietrich v Parliament
(Case F-143/15) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Early termination of the contract - Expiry date of the notice period - Suspension of the notice period - New expiry date of the notice period - Act not having an adverse effect - Complaint lodged out of time - Plea of inadmissibility - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 364/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Constant Dietrich (Pfulgriesheim, France) (represented by: A. Fombaron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and E. Taneva, Agents)

Subject-matter of the case

Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking annulment of the decision terminating early his employment at the European Parliament.

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2)


Constant Dietrich shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 45.
Council Decision (EU) 2016/1205 of 18 July 2016 appointing two alternate members, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Netherlands, appointment of members








L_2016198EN.01004601.xml










23.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 198/46








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/1205
of 18 July 2016
         
appointing two alternate members, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Dutch Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. On 13 July 2015, by Council Decision (EU) 2015/1140 (4), Mr N.A. (André) VAN DE NADORT was replaced by Mr H.J.J. (Henri) LENFERINK as an alternate member. On 18 September 2015, by Council Decision (EU) 2015/1573 (5), Mr J.H.J. (Hans) KONST was replaced by Mr A. (Ard) VAN DER TUUK as an alternate member.












(2)


Two alternate members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr H.J.J. (Henri) LENFERINK and Mr A. (Ard) VAN DER TUUK,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed as alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Mr B.R. (Bouke) ARENDS, Wethouder van de gemeente Emmen,











—


Mr T. (Tjisse) STELPSTRA, Gedeputeerde van de provincie Drenthe.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 18 July 2016.


For the Council


The President

G. MATEČNÁ
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1140 of 13 July 2015 appointing two Dutch members and two Dutch alternate members of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 185, 14.7.2015, p. 17).

(5)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1573 of 18 September 2015 appointing four Dutch members and five Dutch alternate members of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 245, 22.9.2015, p. 10).
Case F-68/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Possanzini v Frontex (Civil service — Frontex staff — Temporary staff — Non-renewal of contract based on the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 — Proof of notification of the report — Absence — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment — Notification of the appraisal report — Delay in the production and communication of the report)
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), staff assessment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2016364EN.01005501.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/55






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Possanzini v Frontex
(Case F-68/15) (1)

((Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of contract based on the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 - Proof of notification of the report - Absence - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment - Notification of the appraisal report - Delay in the production and communication of the report))
(2016/C 364/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (represented by: H. Caniard and V. Peres de Almeida, acting as Agents, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Subject matter of the case

Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 and the claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2)


Daniele Possanzini is to bear his own cost and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 49.
Case F-93/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 — HE v Commission
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, dismissal, indemnification, staff regulations (EU), traineeship








C_2016364EN.01005802.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/58






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 — HE v Commission
(Case F-93/15)
(2016/C 364/77)
Language of the case: French
The Single Judge has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
Case C-257/16: Order of the President of the Court of 18 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aircraft, airline, bird, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation, transport accident, traveller








C_2016454EN.01002101.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/21






Order of the President of the Court of 18 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-257/16) (1)

(2016/C 454/39)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
Case F-48/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 July 2016 —SD (*) v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Staff reporting — 2013 appraisal — Appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Recovery plan — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility)
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, staff assessment




C_2016364EN.01003001.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/30






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 July 2016 — SD (*1) v EUIPO
(Case F-48/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Staff reporting - 2013 appraisal - Appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Recovery plan - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility))
(2016/C 364/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: SD (*1) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

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

Re:

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2013 and the recovery plan adopted on the basis of that report, together with a claim for damages in respect of the non-pecuniary loss allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders  SD (*1) to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 190, 8/6/2015.
DRAFT General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017 - General Introduction - General statement of revenue - General statement of revenue and expenditure by section
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU expenditure, draft budget (EU), financial year, financing of the EU budget, general budget (EU)

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.7.2016  COM(2016) 300 final   DRAFT General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017  - General Introduction - General statement of revenue - General statement of revenue and expenditure by section  
 
 
DOCUMENTS 
DRAFT General Budget 
of the European Union 
for the financial year 2017 

—   General introduction 

—   General statement of revenue 

—   General statement of revenue and expenditure by section:  

—   Section 1:   European Parliament 

—    Section 2:   European Council and Council 

—    Section 3:   Commission 

—    Section 4:   Court of Justice of the European Union 

—    Section 5:   Court of Auditors 

—    Section 6:   European Economic and Social Committee 

—    Section 7:   Committee of the Regions 

—    Section 8:   European Ombudsman 

—    Section 9:   European Data Protection Supervisor 

—    Section 10: European External Action Service  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/www/index-en.htm
Case C-399/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, financial loss, interest, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2016371EN.01000501.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-399/16)
(2016/C 371/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: X NV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State cannot take into account a currency loss in connection with the amount which it has invested in a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas it would be able to do so if that subsidiary were to be included in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of the Netherlands single tax entity — with that parent company established in the first-mentioned Member State, as a result of consolidation within the single tax entity?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can or must the point of departure for determining the currency loss to be taken into account be that (one or more of) the direct and indirect subsidiaries indirectly held by the parent company concerned, through the subsidiary in question, and established in the European Union, should also be included in the single tax entity?










3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: should account be taken only of currency losses that would have been reflected on the parent company’s inclusion in the single tax entity in the years to which the dispute relates, or should the currency exchange results that would have been reflected in earlier years also be taken into account?