do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-613/15: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Frontex
Date: 2016-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, contract, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, information system, management information system, principle of proportionality, services contract, tendering








C_2016454EN.01003301.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/33






Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Frontex
(Case T-613/15) (1)

(2016/C 454/56)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
Case T-446/15: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO)
Date: 2016-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01003301.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/33





Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO)
(Case T-446/15) (1)

(2016/C 410/47)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Case T-447/15: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)
Date: 2016-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2016410EN.01003302.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/33





Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)
(Case T-447/15) (1)

(2016/C 410/48)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Case T-653/16: Action brought on 19 September 2016 — Malta v Commission
Date: 2016-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, common fisheries policy, confidentiality, data protection








C_2016428EN.01001801.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/18





Action brought on 19 September 2016 — Malta v Commission
(Case T-653/16)
(2016/C 428/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision dated 13 July 2016, delivered pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) relating to a request for access to documents registered under the reference GESTDEM 2015/5711;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





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 a failure to abide by the procedural time-limits stipulated in Regulation No 1049/2001;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the wrongful treatment of a request for access to documents as a fresh application;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful extension of the scope of the application for access to documents at the confirmatory stage;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the inclusion by the defendant in the contested decision of documents for release to a third party whose disclosure would breach Article 113 of Regulation No 1224/2009. (2)







(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

(2)  Council Regulation No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1.
Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/1706, taken by common accord with the President of the Commission, of 19 September 2016 appointing a Member of the European Commission
Date: 2016-09-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Commissioner, United Kingdom, appointment of members








L_2016257EN.01001201.xml










23.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 257/12








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/1706,
taken by common accord with the President of the Commission,
of 19 September 2016
         
appointing a Member of the European Commission


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 246 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:







(1)


On 23 October 2014 the European Council adopted Decision 2014/749/EU (2) appointing the European Commission for the period until 31 October 2019.












(2)


In a letter dated 25 June 2016, Mr Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the Commission, informed the Council that Mr Jonathan HILL had resigned from his post as a Member of the Commission with effect from 15 July 2016 at midnight.












(3)


In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 246 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a vacancy caused by resignation is to be filled for the remainder of the Member's term of office by a new Member of the same nationality.












(4)


A new Member of the Commission should therefore be appointed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
By common accord with Mr Jean-Claude JUNCKER, President of the Commission, the Council appoints Mr Julian KING as Member of the Commission for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 31 October 2019.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 19 September 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. LAJČÁK
            





(1)  Opinion of 15 September 2016 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)  
            OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 36.
Case C-498/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 September 2016 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited
Date: 2016-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, claim, consumer, legal action, legal domicile








C_2016441EN.01001002.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 September 2016 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited
(Case C-498/16)
(2016/C 441/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maximilian Schrems

Defendant: Facebook Ireland Limited

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision loses that status, if, after the comparatively long use of a private Facebook account, he publishes books in connection with the enforcement of his claims, on occasion also delivers lectures for remuneration, operates websites, collects donations for the enforcement of his claims and has assigned to him the claims of numerous consumers on the assurance that he will remit to them any proceeds awarded, after the deduction of legal costs?










2.


Is Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer in a Member State can also invoke at the same time as his own claims arising from a consumer supply at the claimant’s place of jurisdiction the claims of others consumers on the same subject who are domiciled






a.


in the same Member State,










b.


in another Member State: or










c.


in a non-Member State,




if the claims assigned to him arise from consumer supplies involving the same defendant in the same legal context and if the assignment is not part of a professional or trade activity of the applicant, but rather serves to ensure the joint enforcement of claims?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.