do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8094 — BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, household electrical appliance, merger control, processing industry








C_2016263EN.01000102.xml










20.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8094 — BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 263/02)
On 14 July 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 the 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 32016M8094. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8080 — Maxburg II/VREP/Norafin) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, textile industry








C_2016263EN.01000101.xml










20.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8080 — Maxburg II/VREP/Norafin)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 263/01)
On 11 July 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 German 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 32016M8080. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-388/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, equal treatment, fiscal policy, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016350EN.01002201.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/22





Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission
(Case T-388/16)
(2016/C 350/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eval Europe NV (Zwijndrecht, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, 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, order the European 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 that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).
Case T-11/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Internet Consulting v EUIPO Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — EU word mark SUEDTIROL — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absolute ground for refusal — Geographical indication of origin — Descriptive character)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business administration, business data processing, digital technology, packaging, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law








C_2016326EN.01002501.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/25





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Internet Consulting v EUIPO Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL)
(Case T-11/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark SUEDTIROL - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute ground for refusal - Geographical indication of origin - Descriptive character))
(2016/C 326/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Internet Consulting GmbH (Brunico, Italy) (represented by: L. Miori and A. Bertella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige (Italy) (represented by: C. Volkmann, lawyer) (Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2014 (Case R 574/2013-G), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between the Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige and Internet Consulting.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Internet Consulting GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Case F-43/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Gaj v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004901.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/49






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Gaj v Commission
(Case F-43/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Act not having an adverse effect - Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 364/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Wanda Gaj (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Subject matter of the case

Application for annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension in the European Union’s pension scheme pursuant to the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the decision of 19 August 2013 which closes the file concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights acquired under the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS) (National Old-Age Insurance Fund for Employees).

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2)


Wanda Gaj is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014, p. 61.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016263EN.01000201.xml










20.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 July 2016
(2016/C 263/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1035 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,20 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4389 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83950 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4922 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0877 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3489 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,014 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,73 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3729 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4772 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2878 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4727 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4364 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5585 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5684 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4921 




KRW


South Korean won


1 257,60 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8098 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3875 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4905 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 443,16 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4205 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,735 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,5272 




THB


Thai baht


38,615 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6078 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,3706 




INR


Indian rupee


74,0824 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-112/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — HL v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2014 promotion exercise — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service — Omission of the applicant’s name — Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion — Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion — Opinions adopted by a joint body — Obligation to state grounds)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, promotion, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016364EN.01003401.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/34






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — HL v Commission
(Case F-112/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the applicant’s name - Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion - Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion - Opinions adopted by a joint body - Obligation to state grounds))
(2016/C 364/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Declares that HL shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 55.
Case T-308/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Reisenthel v EUIPO (keep it easy) (EU trade mark — Application for word mark keep it easy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, packaging product, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016326EN.01002502.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/25





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Reisenthel v EUIPO (keep it easy)
(Case T-308/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for word mark keep it easy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 326/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. A. Busse, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 2659/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign keep it easy as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Peter Reisenthel to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Case T-383/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2016350EN.01002101.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/21





Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council
(Case T-383/16)
(2016/C 350/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tri Ocean Energy (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125),










—


annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), and










—


order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons, in both the challenged decision and the challenged regulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and reputation.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1186 of 20 July 2016 amending for the 249th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism, trade restriction








L_2016196EN.01004401.xml










21.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 196/44








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1186
of 20 July 2016
         
amending for the 249th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(5) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 15 July 2016, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.












(3)


In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 July 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, the following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ is deleted:


            ‘Aschraf Al-Dagma (alias Aschraf Al Dagma). Address: Germany. Date of birth: 28.4.1969. Place of birth: (a) Abasan, Gaza Strip, Palestinian Territories, (b) Kannyouiz, Palestinian Territories. Nationality: Unresolved/Palestinian origin. Other information: (a) Refugee travel document issued by Landratsamt Altenburger Land (Altenburg County Administration Office), Germany, dated 30.4.2000; (b) Associated with Ismail Abdallah Sbaitan Shalabi, Djamel Moustfa and Mohamed Abu Dhess. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a(4)(b): 23.9.2003.’
Case F-119/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Martens and Olsson v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Objection of inadmissibility — Concept of an act having adverse effect — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004702.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/47






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Martens and Olsson v Commission
(Case F-119/13) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 364/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Lieve Martens (Kessel-Lo, Belgium) and Björn Mikael Olsson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and lastly by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions relating to the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which apply the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Ms Lieve Martens and Mr Björn Mikael Olsson shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 129, 28/4/2014, p. 37.