do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2063 of 24 November 2016 confirming the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CEPOL, EU office or agency, Ireland, application of the law, cross-border cooperation, operation of the Institutions, seat of institution, vocational training








L_2016319EN.01004601.xml










25.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 319/46








            COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2016/2063
of 24 November 2016
         
confirming the participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By letter to the President of the Council of 26 July 2016, Ireland notified its wish to participate in Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).












(2)


There are no specific conditions attached to the participation of Ireland in the above mentioned Regulation and no need for transitional measures. The Commission notes that Ireland has established a CEPOL national unit according to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2219.












(3)


The participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 should therefore be confirmed.












(4)


In order to allow Ireland to participate in CEPOL's activities as soon as possible, this Decision should enter into force on the day following that of its publication,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The participation of Ireland in Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 is confirmed.


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




Done at Brussels, 24 November 2016.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2005/681/JHA (OJ L 319, 4.12.2015, p. 1).
Case T-196/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by Valéria Anna Gyarmathy against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 March 2015 in Case F-97/13, Gyarmathy/FRA
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), equal treatment, right to justice, servant (EU)








C_2017086EN.01002801.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/28





Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by Valéria Anna Gyarmathy against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 March 2015 in Case F-97/13, Gyarmathy/FRA
(Case T-196/15 P)
(2017/C 086/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside in full the contested judgment and uphold in its entirety the form of order sought at first instance;










—


order the defendant to bear all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging distortion of evidence and substantive inaccuracy in the factual appraisal by the Civil Service Tribunal of the question of the violation of the terms of the vacancy notice.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal, contrary to the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give adequate reasons for its judgment on the questions arising from the selection process.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal to adopt further procedural measures which would have enabled the applicant to substantiate her claim concerning a lack of impartiality, objectivity or independence in the selection process.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by declaring inadmissible the applicant’s plea in law at first instance relating to the filling of the post concerned, on the ground that it was not raised in the pre-litigation procedure.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by declaring inadmissible the applicant’s plea in law at first instance relating to the irregular composition of the selection committee and the breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, on the ground that it was not raised in the pre-litigation procedure and was not closely related to the pleas in the complaint (correspondence rule).
Case T-520/16: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Teleworking — Request for extension — Refusal — Actions — Subsequent grant of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disability insurance, servant (EU), teleworking, temporary employment, work contract








C_2017022EN.01003701.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/37





Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO
(Case T-520/16) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Teleworking - Request for extension - Refusal - Actions - Subsequent grant of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 022/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ED (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 15 January 2014 refusing to grant the applicant’s request of 26 September 2013 to be allowed essentially to continue teleworking from Barcelona (Spain) until her health was restored and annulment of the decision of the President of EUIPO of 3 June 2014 rejecting her complaint of 7 February 2014.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.










2.


ED shall bear one third of her own costs.










3.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by ED.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-93/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case C-379/16 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public service contracts — Software development and maintenance services — Misinterpretation of the arguments and distortion of the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the General Court)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, conflict of interest, equal treatment, invitation to tender, maintenance, services contract, software








C_2017086EN.01000302.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/3





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-379/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public service contracts - Software development and maintenance services - Misinterpretation of the arguments and distortion of the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the General Court))
(2017/C 086/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, dikigoroi)

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

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Case C-662/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical devices — Class I device (sterile wound dressings) which has been the subject of a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer — Parallel imports — Addition to the labelling of information relating to the importer — Supplementary conformity assessment procedure)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, import (EU), labelling, launching of a product, market approval, medical device








C_2017030EN.01001401.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/14





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH
(Case C-662/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Class I device (sterile wound dressings) which has been the subject of a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer - Parallel imports - Addition to the labelling of information relating to the importer - Supplementary conformity assessment procedure))
(2017/C 030/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(f) and Article 11 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as not requiring a parallel importer of a medical device, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which bears a CE marking and which has been subjected to a conformity assessment within the meaning of that Article 11, to carry out a further assessment designed to certify the conformity of the information allowing its identification which that parallel importer adds to the labelling of that device with a view to that device being placed on the market of the Member State of importation.


(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), nuclear energy, nuclear industry








C_2016434EN.01000601.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/6





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2016/C 434/06)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AD/330/16 — ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY (AD 7)
for the following profiles:






1.


NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS INSPECTORS










2.


POLICY OFFICERS








The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 434 A of 24 November 2016.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-512/16: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Teleworking — Request for extension — Refusal — Actions — Subsequent grant of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disability insurance, servant (EU), teleworking, temporary employment, work contract








C_2017022EN.01003602.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/36





Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO
(Case T-512/16) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Teleworking - Request for extension - Refusal - Actions - Subsequent grant of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 022/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ED (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, P. Saba and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 15 January 2014 refusing to grant the applicant’s request of 26 September 2013 to be allowed essentially to continue teleworking from Barcelona (Spain) until her health was restored.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.










2.


ED shall bear one third of her own costs










3.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by ED.






(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-35/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8265 — Carlyle/KAP) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil engineering, economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, textile industry








C_2016434EN.01001001.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8265 — Carlyle/KAP)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 434/10)






1.


On 18 November 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking The Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, United States), through its fund Carlyle Strategic Partners IV, L.P. (‘CSP IV’, United States), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking KAP-Beteiligungs AG (‘KAP’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Carlyle: global alternative asset management, managing funds that invest globally across several investment disciplines,
—   for KAP: investment in small to medium-sized enterprises.










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.8265 — Carlyle/KAP, 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.
Case C-461/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Andalusia, Spain, bird, environmental impact, infringement of EU law, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, rail network








C_2017030EN.01000401.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-461/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats))
(2017/C 030/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, E. Sanfrutos Cano, D. Loma-Osorio Lerena and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special protection area ‘Campiñas de Sevilla’, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which that area was established, the Kingdom of Spain failed, in respect of the period before 29 July 2008, to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and, in respect of the period after that date, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, environmental protection, power plant, tax law, tax relief, wind energy








C_2016434EN.01000401.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/4





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2016/C 434/04)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


6 July 2016





Case No



:


79160





Decision No



:


150/16/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Title



:


Amendment to the Norwegian Tax Act concerning changes in the depreciation rules for wind power plants





Legal basis



:


Act 19.6.2015 no. 52 on amendment of act 26.3.1999 no. 14 (the Taxation Act) paragraph 14-51.





Type of measure



:


Scheme





Objective



:


Environmental protection





Form of aid



:


Tax advantage





Budget



:


NOK 115 million





Intensity



:


3,7 %





Duration



:


19.6.2015-31.12.2021





Economic sectors



:


Energy





Name and address of the granting authority



:







Ministry of Finance




P.O. Box 8008 Dep.




NO-0030 Oslo




NORWAY









Other information



:




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case T-825/16: Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — POCF (Pallas Halloumi)
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01005201.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/52





Action brought on 24 November 2016 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — POCF (Pallas Halloumi)
(Case T-825/16)
(2017/C 022/70)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pancyprian Organisation of Cattle Farmers (POCF) (Latsia, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pallas Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 180 536

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 2065/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Special Report No 31/2016 — ‘Spending at least one euro in every five from the EU budget on climate action: ambitious work underway, but at serious risk of falling short’
Date: 2016-11-24
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EAFRD, EU environmental policy, EU expenditure, European Regional Development Fund, aid to agriculture, budgetary expenditure, climate change, climate change policy, common agricultural policy








C_2016434EN.01000301.xml










24.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/3





Special Report No 31/2016
‘Spending at least one euro in every five from the EU budget on climate action: ambitious work underway, but at serious risk of falling short’
(2016/C 434/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 31/2016 ‘Spending at least one euro in every five from the EU budget on climate action: ambitious work underway, but at serious risk of falling short’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu