do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-113/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — Adriaen and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2014 promotion exercise — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Lists of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service — Omission of the applicants’ names — 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 regulations (EU)








C_2016364EN.01003501.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/35






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — Adriaen and Others v Commission
(Case F-113/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Lists of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the applicants’ names - 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 364/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Charlotte Adriaen (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (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 applicants 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 Ms Adriaen and the 12 other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 55.
Case T-745/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (e@sy Credit) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark e@sy Credit — Earlier national figurative mark EasyCredit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, credit institution, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016326EN.01002201.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/22





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (e@sy Credit)
(Case T-745/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark e@sy Credit - Earlier national figurative mark EasyCredit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 326/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by: D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and intervener before the General Court: Easy Asset Management AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Georgieva-Tabakova and H. Raychev, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2014 (Case R 1975/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Easy Asset Management AD and TeamBank AG Nürnberg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
Case F-108/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Belis v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the merits of the case — 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.01005102.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/51






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Belis v Commission
(Case F-108/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the merits of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 364/66)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Claudio Belis (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision crediting the applicant’s pension rights in relation to the transfer of those rights to the European Union pension scheme, pursuant to 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.


Mr Claudio Belis shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 46.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1019/2013 of 23 October 2013 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as regards histamines in fishery products (OJ L 282, 24.10.2013)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, fishery product, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, health control, sampling








L_2016195EN.01008301.xml










20.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 195/83







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1019/2013 of 23 October 2013 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as regards histamines in fishery products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 282 of 24 October 2013
)


On page 47, in the Annex amending Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005, point 2 amending row 1.27a:
for:


















‘1.27a


Fish sauce produced by fermentation of fishery products






Histamine


1


400 mg/kg


HPLC (19)


Products placed on the market during their shelf-life’


 





read:


















‘1.27a


Fish sauce produced by fermentation of fishery products






Histamine


1


0


400 mg/kg


HPLC (19)


Products placed on the market during their shelf-life’
Case C-141/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Single tax on betting and pools — Tax liability of national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of operators established in another Member State — Insufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, basis of tax assessment, data transmission, freedom to provide services, game of chance, gaming establishment, right of establishment








C_2016454EN.01001501.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/15






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia

(Case C-141/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Single tax on betting and pools - Tax liability of national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of operators established in another Member State - Insufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2016/C 454/28)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano (Milan Regional Tax Court, Italy), by decision of 29 September 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 191 of 30.5.2016.
Case F-138/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Polizzi v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01005302.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/53






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Polizzi v Commission
(Case F-138/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 364/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Rosalba Polizzi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the applicant’s pension rights in the context of the transfer of those rights to the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new general implementing provisions 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 Rosalba Polizzi shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 55.
Case T-384/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2016326EN.01003002.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/30





Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
(Case T-384/16)
(2016/C 326/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (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.
Case T-387/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Terna v Commission
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, debt, industrial project, reimbursement of aid








C_2016326EN.01003101.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/31





Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Terna v Commission
(Case T-387/16)
(2016/C 326/54)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Police, L. Di Via, F. Degni, F. Covone and D. Carria, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


primarily, annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 23 May 2016 (Reference No: ENER/SRD.3/JCM/cID(2016)2952913), which merely confirms the previous measure of 6 July 2015 (Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621), together with the measure of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 14 June 2016 (Reference No: SRD.3/JCM/cl/D(2016)4477388) communicating Debit Note No 3 241 608 548 ordering payment of EUR 494 871,39 by 28 July 2016, annulling as a result the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 6 July 2015 (Reference No: Move.srd3.dir(2015)2669621), in so far as that decision does not allow reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with Projects Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07/TEN-E-S07.91403 and imposes an obligation to repay the sums granted in connection with those projects in the amounts set out in the table appended to the contested measure;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of 23 May 2016 (Reference No: ENER/SRD.3/JCM/cID (2016)2952913), together with the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of 6 July 2015 (Reference No: Move.srd3.dir(2015)2669621), in so far as that decision does not provide for a reduction in the reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with Projects Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07/TEN-E-S07.91.403 commensurate with the profits made by CESI.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The measures contested in the present case merely confirm the previous determinations made by the Commission, which have already been challenged in good time by the applicant in the action pending before the General Court in Case T-544/15.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in that case.
Case F-46/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Hoeve 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.01005001.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/50






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Hoeve v Commission
(Case F-46/14) (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 364/64)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Roelof-Jan Wino Hoeve (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, M. 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 decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which applies 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.


Mr Roelof-Jan Wino Hoeve shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 47.
Case F-45/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Esen v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired before entering the service of the European Union under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Plea of inadmissibility — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — 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.01004902.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/49






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Esen v Commission
(Case F-45/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired before entering the service of the European Union under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Plea of inadmissibility - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 364/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kerim Esen (Maputo, Mozambique) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. 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 and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension scheme which applies 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.


Mr Kerim Esen shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 46.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006)
Date: 2016-07-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, carrier, driving period, humanisation of work, rest period, road safety, road transport








L_2016195EN.01008302.xml










20.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 195/83







Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 102 of 11 April 2006
)


On page 8, point (l) of Article 13(1):
for:







‘(l)


vehicles used for milk collection from farms and the return to farms of milk containers or milk products intended for animal feed;’





read:







‘(l)


vehicles used for milk collection from farms and/or for the return to farms of milk containers or milk products intended for animal feed;’.