do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2016/1636 of 6 September 2016 on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/1/2016)
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Central African Republic, EU military mission, Georgia, military cooperation, regional security




L_2016243EN.01001301.xml










10.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 243/13








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1636
of 6 September 2016
         
on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/1/2016)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/610of 19 April 2016 on a European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (1),

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/610, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States.












(2)


Following recommendation on a contribution from Georgia by the EU Mission Commander and the advice from the European Union Military Committee, the contribution from Georgia should be accepted.












(3)


In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Consequently, Denmark is not participating in the adoption of this Decision and is neither bound by it nor subject to its application,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

Third States' contributions


1.   The contribution from Georgia to EUTM RCA is accepted and considered to be significant.


2.   Georgia is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUTM RCA.



Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 6 September 2016.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

W. STEVENS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 104, 20.4.2016, p. 21.
Case T-646/16 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, infringement of EU law, pay scale, promotion








C_2016419EN.01005101.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/51





Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council
(Case T-646/16 P)
(2016/C 419/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 24 June 2016 in Case 142/11 RENV Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it rejects the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the applicant has to bear its own costs and the costs of the Council;










—


refer the case to the First Instance Judge, if needed; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that, regarding the obligation to state grounds the CST has made an error in law, has infringed the European law, has not provided its order with the prescribed grounds and has distorted evidence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that, regarding the principle of equal treatment and the manifest error of appraisal the appellant alleges that the CST has distorted evidence, has made an error in law, has infringed the European law and has not provided the contested order with a sufficient motivation.
Case T-9/16: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2016 — Skechers USA France v EUIPO — IM Production (Shoes)
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2016410EN.01003605.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/36





Order of the General Court of 6 September 2016 — Skechers USA France v EUIPO — IM Production (Shoes)
(Case T-9/16) (1)

(2016/C 410/66)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Corrigendum to Guideline (EU) 2016/1386 of the European Central Bank of 2 August 2016 amending Guideline ECB/2013/7 concerning statistics on holdings of securities (ECB/2016/23) (OJ L 222, 17.8.2016)
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: EU statistics, balance-sheet analysis, central bank, data collection, euro area, exchange of information, financial control, financial statistics, securities








L_2016238EN.01000702.xml










6.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 238/7







Corrigendum to Guideline (EU) 2016/1386 of the European Central Bank of 2 August 2016 amending Guideline ECB/2013/7 concerning statistics on holdings of securities (ECB/2016/23)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 222 of 17 August 2016
)


On page 92, Article 2:
for:

               ‘The Eurosystem central banks shall comply with paragraphs 1, 2 and 15 of Article 1 from that date. The Eurosystem central banks shall comply with paragraphs 3 to 14 and 16 and 17 of Article 1 of this Guideline from 1 October 2018.’,
read:

               ‘The Eurosystem central banks shall comply with points 1, 2 and 19 of Article 1 from that date. The Eurosystem central banks shall comply with points 3 to 18 and 20 and 21 of Article 1 of this Guideline from 1 October 2018.’.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/887 of 2 June 2016 amending Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC as regards the list of third countries or parts thereof from which the introduction into the Union of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines is authorised (OJ L 148, 4.6.2016)
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Argentina, Brazil, cattle, foot-and-mouth disease, health certificate, import (EU), import licence, import restriction, meat product, veterinary inspection








L_2016238EN.01000701.xml










6.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 238/7







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/887 of 2 June 2016 amending Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC as regards the list of third countries or parts thereof from which the introduction into the Union of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines is authorised

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 148 of 4 June 2016
)


On page 7, in the second sentence of recital 6:
for:

               ‘without vaccination’,
read:

               ‘with vaccination’.
Case C-237/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2016 — Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — EU trade mark — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2016454EN.01000601.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/6






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2016 — Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-237/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 454/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A.K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
Case T-633/16: Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Bilde v Parliament
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of Parliament, equal treatment, fundamental rights, general legal principle, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2016383EN.01002701.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/27





Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Bilde v Parliament
(Case T-633/16)
(2016/C 383/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: G. Sauveur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, determining ‘that a sum of EUR 40 320 was wrongfully paid to Ms Dominique BILDE’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that amount;










—


also annul the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of 30 June and July 2016, ref. D 201921 and D 31255; and










—


annul the entirety of the debit note No. 2016-889 signed by that Director-General for Finance dated 29 June 2016;










—


award the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 as compensation for the non-material damage resulting simultaneously from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;










—


in addition award her the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents, and order the European Parliament to pay that amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs;










—


alternatively, in the event that the Court should not be entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas in law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking account of the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts on which the contested decision is based and those which are the subject of the criminal investigation opened by the President of the European Parliament:






—


stay the proceedings pending a final decision, which is res judicata, delivered by the French ordinary court hearing the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament;










—


consequently order a stay of execution of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-624/16, Gollnisch v Parliament.
Case C-224/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2016 — Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — EU trade mark — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2016454EN.01000502.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/5






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2016 — Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-224/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 454/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A.K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
Case T-637/16: Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Wabco Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, tax relief








C_2016419EN.01004801.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/48





Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Wabco Europe v Commission
(Case T-637/16)
(2016/C 419/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wabco Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Righini and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment admissible;










—


annul, in whole or in part, the decision (1); and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by errors in law and in fact in identifying the alleged State aid measure and categorising it as an aid scheme;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering the measure selective under Article 107 TFEU;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering that the measure grants the applicant an advantage under Article 107 TFEU;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission’s inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons infringes Article 296 TFEU;










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case;










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused of its power in establishing its own arm’s length principle through a State aid decision.






(1)  Commission’s Decision C(2015) 9837 final of 11 January 2016 in State aid case SA.37667 — Excess Profit exemption in Belgium (the ‘decision’)
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016327EN.01000101.xml










6.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 September 2016
(2016/C 327/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1156 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,24 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4407 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83643 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5478 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0925 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2458 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,33 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3541 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4495 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2872 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4696 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4436 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6517 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5252 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5135 




KRW


South Korean won


1 234,36 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0116 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4496 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5010 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 658,43 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5472 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,907 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,4024 




THB


Thai baht


38,711 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6258 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6487 




INR


Indian rupee


74,1400 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-634/16: Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Montel v Parliament
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, debt, equal treatment, fundamental rights, general legal principle, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2016383EN.01002801.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/28





Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Montel v Parliament
(Case T-634/16)
(2016/C 383/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Sophie Montel (Saint-Vit, France) (represented by: G. Sauveur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, determining ‘that a sum of EUR 77 276,42 was wrongfully paid to Ms Sophie MONTEL’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that amount;










—


also annul the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of 5 and 6 July 2016, ref. D 201922 and D 201851; and










—


annul the entirety of the debit note No. 2016-897 signed by that Director-General for Finance dated 4 July 2016;










—


award the applicant the sum of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the non-material damage resulting simultaneously from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;










—


in addition award her the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents, and order the European Parliament to pay that amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs;










—


alternatively, in the event that the Court should not be entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas in law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking account of the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts on which the contested decision is based and those which are the subject of the criminal investigation opened by the President of the European Parliament:






—


stay the proceedings pending a final decision, which is res judicata, delivered by the French ordinary court hearing the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament;










—


consequently order a stay of execution of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-624/16, Gollnisch v Parliament.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8182 — PAI Partners/RP Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control, travel agency








C_2016327EN.01000701.xml










6.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8182 — PAI Partners/RP Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 327/05)






1.


On 30 August 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 PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking RP Group BV (‘RP’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for PAI: private equity company that manages and advises a number of funds that own companies active in a variety of business sectors, such as outdoor equipment, fashion, call centres and budget hotels;
—   for RP: active in the holiday parks industry. RP manages and operates holiday parks in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany under the ‘Roompot’ brand. RP is also active in park development, park refurbishment and tour operating.










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 the 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.8182 — PAI Partners/RP 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.