do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-74/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004502.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/45






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission
(Case F-74/13) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Anne Mommer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and subsequently by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and finally by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 33.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016280EN.01000101.xml










2.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

1 August 2016
(2016/C 280/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1164 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,28 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4389 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84540 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5833 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0807 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4455 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,029 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3510 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4540 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3424 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4751 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4587 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6623 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5545 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4966 




KRW


South Korean won


1 236,21 




ZAR


South African rand


15,5121 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4136 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4855 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 549,55 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4954 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,474 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,8736 




THB


Thai baht


38,806 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6361 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9306 




INR


Indian rupee


74,4640 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-429/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, collective dismissal, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions








C_2016392EN.01001001.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi
(Case C-429/16)
(2016/C 392/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Małgorzata Ciupa and Others

Defendant: II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

Question referred

‘Is Article 2 of Directive 98/59/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an employer employing at least 20 employees and who intends to give notices of termination of contractual conditions in relation to a number of employees, as provided for in Article 1(1) of the Law of 13 March 2003 laying down special rules on terminating employment relationships with employees for reasons unrelated to the employees (Ustawa o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, Dz. U. 2003, No 90, item 844, as amended), is required to use the procedures specified in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 6 of that law, that is, does that obligation apply in the case of the following articles:






1.


Article 241(2) 13 in conjunction with Article 241(2) 8 and Article 23 1 of the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy);










2.


Article 241(2) 13 in conjunction with Article 77(5) 2 or Article 241(1) 7 of the Labour Code;










3.


Article 42(1) of the Labour Code in conjunction with Article 45(1) of the Labour Code?’






(1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies; OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
Case F-102/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Urena de Poznanski v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under other pension schemes — Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004701.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/47






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Urena de Poznanski v Commission
(Case F-102/13) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under other pension schemes - Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Soldimar Urena de Poznanski (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and last by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the additional pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new general implementing provisions concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 24 of 25/1/2014, p. 40.
Judgment of the Court of 2 August 2016 in Case E-34/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2012/46/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, agricultural vehicle, atmospheric pollutant, engine, environmental protection, environmental standard, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions, technical specification








C_2017120EN.01002301.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/23





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 2 August 2016
in Case E-34/15
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2012/46/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery)
(2017/C 120/11)
In Case E-34/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed or, in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 August 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery) as adapted to the agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case F-146/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Act not having an adverse effect — Action manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004302.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/43






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission
(Case F-146/12) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Action manifestly inadmissible))
(2016/C 364/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Anne Mommer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and subsequently by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and finally by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and finally by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 78.
Case F-70/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Polizzi v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme — Decision recognising the crediting of pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01005502.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/55






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Polizzi v Commission
(Case F-70/15) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme - Decision recognising the crediting of pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent)

Subject-matter of the case

Action for annulment of the final decision transferring the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIP) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Operative part of the order







1)


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










2)


The parties shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p 49.
Case T-426/16: Action brought on 2 August 2016 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, distributor, registered trade mark, retail trade, storage, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2016364EN.01002102.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/21






Action brought on 2 August 2016 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales)
(Case T-426/16)
(2016/C 364/21)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aromas Selective, SL (Dos Hermanas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Aa AROMAS artesanales’– Application for registration No 12 215 018

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2016 in Case R 766/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Existence of priority rights and peaceful co-existence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks.










—


Weak distinctive character of the term ‘AROMAS’.










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-134/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (Civil service — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of the request for assistance — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Request for transfer of pension rights — Withdrawal of the request for transfer of pension rights during the proceedings — No need to adjudicate on the rejection of the request for assistance)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004201.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/42






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
(Case F-134/11) (1)

((Civil service - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of the request for assistance - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Request for transfer of pension rights - Withdrawal of the request for transfer of pension rights during the proceedings - No need to adjudicate on the rejection of the request for assistance))
(2016/C 364/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppen, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, subsequently by S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, next by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and last by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following the withdrawal of a transfer proposal accepted by the applicants after a reasonable period had elapsed for the purposes of benefiting from the possibility of transferring their pension rights.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission.










2.


Mr Giorgio Cocchi, Ms Nicola Falcione and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OC C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 23.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8114 — Cobepa/JF Hillebrand Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, logistics, merger control, storage, transport company








C_2016280EN.01000501.xml










2.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8114 — Cobepa/JF Hillebrand Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 280/04)






1.


On 22 July 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Cobepa SA (‘Cobepa’, Belgium) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of JF Hillebrand AG (‘JFH’, Germany), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Cobepa: a privately-held investment company whose investment strategy is centred around two main types of investments: growth capital investments and buy-out transactions. Cobepa mainly seeks to pursue investment opportunities in Europe and North America.
—   for JFH: the Group is composed of three specialised logistics companies: JF Hillebrand, a beverage logistics service provider; Satellite Logistics Group, a beer logistics service provider; and TransOcean, a bulk logistics service provider.










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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










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.8114 — Cobepa/JF Hillebrand Group, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.