do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-405/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2016 in Case T-47/15, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy grid, energy production, energy supply, financial aid, national law, renewable energy








C_2016326EN.01001801.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/18





Appeal brought on 19 July 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2016 in Case T-47/15, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
(Case C-405/16 P)
(2016/C 326/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, Agents, assisted by T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Federal Republic of Germany claims that the Court should:






—


set aside, in its entirety, the judgment under appeal of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2016 in Case T-47/15;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based on three grounds of appeal:
1. First ground of appeal
The judgment of the General Court under appeal failed to have regard for the limits of the definition of aid under Article 107(1) TFEU in the interpretation of ‘State resources’ and State ‘control’ over the financial resources of private undertakings. The judgment under appeal wrongly assumes that ‘authorities’ of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of the requirements of the German Renewable Energy Law, exercise ‘control’, and therefore administrative power, over the financial means of transmission system operators and energy supply undertakings integrated into the existing system in Germany for promoting renewable energies. The General Court ought properly to have recognised that the Renewable Energy Law creates solely private-law contractual relations between single undertakings in the German energy market but establishes no State control over the financial means of those undertakings.
2. Second ground of appeal
The appellant criticises the General Court for having wrongly held that the German Renewable Energy Law provides an advantage amounting to aid to energy-intensive undertakings as final consumers. In so holding, the General Court failed to have regard for the case-law relating to structural disadvantages and also to the criterion of the selectivity of aid.
3. Third ground of appeal
Finally, the appellant complains of insufficient reasoning in the judgment with regard to the positions of both transmission systems operators and energy supply undertakings.
Case F-149/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — HG v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Officials posted to a non-Member State — Lodging provided by the administration — Obligation to reside there — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary penalty — Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Deferment of advancement to a higher step — Compensation for the harm — Article 22 of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, disciplinary proceedings, expatriate worker, indemnification, pay scale, promotion, staff regulations (EU), third country








C_2016364EN.01004101.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/41






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — HG v Commission
(Case F-149/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Officials posted to a non-Member State - Lodging provided by the administration - Obligation to reside there - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Deferment of advancement to a higher step - Compensation for the harm - Article 22 of the Staff Regulations))
(2016/C 364/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step and obliging the applicant to pay compensation in respect of harm allegedly incurred by the European Union, and an application for compensation in respect of the non-material harm and the reputational damage allegedly incurred.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


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






(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 46.
Case T-742/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Alpha Calcit v EUIPO — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CALCILITE — Earlier EU word mark Calcilit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relevant public — Public common to the goods in question)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01002001.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/20





Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Alpha Calcit v EUIPO — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE)
(Case T-742/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark CALCILITE - Earlier EU word mark Calcilit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relevant public - Public common to the goods in question))
(2016/C 314/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Materis Paints Italia SpA (Novate Milanese, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 753/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft and Materis Paints Italia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 753/2013-4) as regards the ‘paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants’ covered by the contested trade mark;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH, EUIPO and Materis Paints Italia SpA to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
Case T-677/15: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission (Action for annulment — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, claim, debt, interest, mother tongue, payment, principle of proportionality








C_2016335EN.01004701.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/47





Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission
(Case T-677/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 335/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment (i) of the letter from the Director of Directorate B ‘Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements’ of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance dated 21 September 2015 concerning recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 83 764,34 and enclosing the related debit note of 18 September 2015 and (ii) of the letter from the Secretary General of the Parliament of 27 July 2012 informing the applicant of the findings of an investigation into the use of his parliamentary allowances.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the letter from the Director of Directorate B ‘Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements’ of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance dated 21 September 2015 and against Debit Note No 2015-1320 of 18 September 2015.










2.


For the rest, the action is dismissed as inadmissible.










3.


Mr Pier Antonio Panzeri shall pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.










4.


The Parliament shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case F-67/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Opreana v Commission (Civil service — Temporary member of staff — Temporary member of staff occupying a permanent position — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Pregnancy — Act adversely affecting a member of staff — Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a member of staff — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: dismissal, motherhood, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2016364EN.01003101.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/31






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Opreana v Commission
(Case F-67/15) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary member of staff - Temporary member of staff occupying a permanent position - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Pregnancy - Act adversely affecting a member of staff - Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a member of staff - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff))
(2016/C 364/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Luisa Opreana (Arlon, Belgium) (represented by: initially by A. Salerno, lawyer, and subsequently by A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its termination date, although she was coming to the end of her pregnancy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the European Commission’s decision not to renew Ms Luisa Opreana’s temporary staff contract, which came to an end on 31 August 2014;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Opreana.






(1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 50.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8061 — IMS Health/Quintiles) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: biotechnology, data processing, economic concentration, market research, merger control, public opinion








C_2016261EN.01000601.xml










19.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8061 — IMS Health/Quintiles)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 261/06)






1.


On 7 July 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which IMS Health Holdings (‘IMS Health’, United States) enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc. (‘Quintiles’, United States).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   IMS Health: a global information and technology services company providing healthcare companies with solutions to measure and improve their performance, such as pricing and market access, data management, prescribing trends, etc.,
—   Quintiles: global provider of product development services and commercial outsourcing services to support healthcare companies develop and commercialize new therapies.










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 M.8061 — IMS Health/Quintiles, 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 C-403/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 July 2016 — Soufiane El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, appeal, right to justice








C_2016383EN.01000202.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 July 2016 — Soufiane El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych
(Case C-403/16)
(2016/C 383/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Soufiane El Hassani

Respondent: Minister Spraw Zagranicznych

Question referred

Must Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), (1) having regard to recital 29 of the Visa Code and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to guarantee an effective remedy (appeal) before a court of law?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1.
Case F-131/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Stips v Commission (Civil Service — Member of the temporary staff paid from research and investment appropriations — Article 2(d) CEOS — Contract of indefinite duration — Reclassification in the higher grade — 2013 reclassification round — Closure of the round after 1 January 2014 — Entry into force of Regulation No 1023/2013 — Methods of accessing grade AD 13 — Application, by analogy, of Article 45(1) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex I of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to reclassify an AD 12 member of the temporary staff — Suitability for reclassification — Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity — Right to good administration)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, principle of legal certainty, reassignment, retroactivity of a law, servant (EU), work contract








C_2016364EN.01003801.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/38






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Stips v Commission
(Case F-131/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff paid from research and investment appropriations - Article 2(d) CEOS - Contract of indefinite duration - Reclassification in the higher grade - 2013 reclassification round - Closure of the round after 1 January 2014 - Entry into force of Regulation No 1023/2013 - Methods of accessing grade AD 13 - Application, by analogy, of Article 45(1) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex I of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to reclassify an AD 12 member of the temporary staff - Suitability for reclassification - Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity - Right to good administration))
(2016/C 364/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Adolf Stips (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reclassify the applicant as grade AD 13 in the 2013 reclassification round.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 21 January 2015, by which the European Commission did not reclassify Mr Adolf Stips as grade AD 13 in the 2013 reclassification round;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Stips.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 45.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016261EN.01000401.xml










19.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 July 2016
(2016/C 261/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1053 




JPY


Japanese yen


116,82 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4387 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83372 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4679 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0869 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3627 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,024 




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3805 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4686 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2680 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4557 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4315 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5713 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5555 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4900 




KRW


South Korean won


1 257,60 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7685 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4089 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4957 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 468,93 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3971 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,650 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,7145 




THB


Thai baht


38,647 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5963 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,4348 




INR


Indian rupee


74,2758 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-131/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Belgium v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Tax scheme exempting excess profits of a number of multinational companies — Exemption granted on the basis of tax rulings — Decision declaring scheme to be aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery of the aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, fiscal policy, multinational enterprise, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016326EN.01002801.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/28





Order of the President of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Belgium v Commission
(Case T-131/16 R)
((Application for interim measures - State aid - Tax scheme exempting excess profits of a number of multinational companies - Exemption granted on the basis of tax rulings - Decision declaring scheme to be aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery of the aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
(2016/C 326/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures suspending the operation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2015) 9887 final of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium

Operative part of the order







1)


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2)


The costs are reserved.
Case T-770/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Italy v Commission (ERDF — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 — Failure to comply with the deadlines — Automatic decommitment — Proportionality — Principle of cooperation — Principle of partnership — Force majeure — Obligation to state reasons — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Italy, Malta, cross-border cooperation, distribution of EU funding, financial management, principle of proportionality, project evaluation








C_2016335EN.01004601.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/46





Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-770/14) (1)

((ERDF - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 - Failure to comply with the deadlines - Automatic decommitment - Proportionality - Principle of cooperation - Principle of partnership - Force majeure - Obligation to state reasons - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 335/60)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and D. Recchia, Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of Commission note Ares (2014) 2975571 of 11 September 2014, by which the Commission notified the Italian Republic of the automatic decommitment, on 31 December 2013, of a part of the resources relating to European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) commitments referred to in the Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013, and, secondly, that the General Court declare the expenditure relating to the ImaGenX, Simit and PIM Energethica projects eligible for financing.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.