do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-618/16: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Dreimane v Commission (Action for annulment and compensation — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights, working time








C_2017202EN.01001901.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/19





Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Dreimane v Commission
(Case T-618/16) (1)

((Action for annulment and compensation - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Calculation of years of pensionable service - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Time-limit - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 202/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sandra Dreimane (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Ābiks, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision fixing the number of additional pensionable years to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the EU institutions following the applicant’s request to transfer pension rights acquired before she entered the service of the European Union, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to act within a reasonable period in the processing of that transfer request.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union.










3.


Ms Sandra Dreimane shall bear her own costs and also pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-48/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-226/16: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal skin, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017239EN.01007201.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/72





Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)
(Case T-226/16) (1)

(2017/C 239/84)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Case C-216/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza and Del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. a r.l. v Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST) and Others
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, services contract








C_2017277EN.01002301.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza and Del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. a r.l. v Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST) and Others
(Case C-216/17)
(2017/C 277/33)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza and del Mercato (AGCM) — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. a r.l.

Defendants: Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale del Garda (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica (ASST)

Questions referred







(1)


Can Articles 2(5) and 32 of Directive 2004/18/EU (1) and Article 33 of Directive 2014/24/EU (2) be interpreted as allowing the conclusion of a framework agreement in which:






(a)


a contracting authority acts on its own behalf and on behalf of other contracting authorities specifically indicated, which do not, however, play a direct part in the conclusion of that framework agreement;










(b)


the quantity of services that may be required by the non-signatory contracting authorities when they enter into the subsequent contracts envisaged in the framework agreement itself is not determined;














(2)


if the answer to question (1) should be in the negative,
Can Articles 2(5) and 32 of Directive 2004/18/EU and Article 33 of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as allowing the conclusion of a framework agreement in which:






(a)


a contracting authority acts on its own behalf and on behalf of other contracting authorities specifically indicated, which do not, however, play a direct part in the conclusion of that framework agreement;










(b)


the quantity of services that may be required by the non-signatory contracting authorities when they enter into the subsequent contracts envisaged in the framework agreement itself is determined by reference to their usual requirements.










(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

(2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Case T-570/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — HF v Parliament (Civil Service — Member of the auxiliary contract staff — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Statutory reply period of four months — AECC decision to open an administrative inquiry — No position adopted by the AECC within the statutory reply period as to the reality of the alleged psychological harassment — Concept of decision impliedly rejecting the request for assistance — Non-existent act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, damages, legal aid, psychological harassment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2017178EN.01001401.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/14





Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — HF v Parliament
(Case T-570/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of the auxiliary contract staff - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Statutory reply period of four months - AECC decision to open an administrative inquiry - No position adopted by the AECC within the statutory reply period as to the reality of the alleged psychological harassment - Concept of decision impliedly rejecting the request for assistance - Non-existent act - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 178/16)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of an implied decision of the Parliament’s Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, allegedly made on 11 April 2015, rejecting the request for assistance made by the applicant on 11 December 2014 and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms HF;










3.


Orders Ms HF to bear half of her own costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-142/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case C-212/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Simón Rodríguez Otero v Televisión de Galicia S.A.
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, severance pay, temporary employment, termination of a contract, work contract








C_2017231EN.01001501.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Simón Rodríguez Otero v Televisión de Galicia S.A.
(Case C-212/17)
(2017/C 231/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Simón Rodríguez Otero

Respondent: Televisión de Galicia S.A.

Other party: Ministerio Fiscal

Questions referred







1.a)


For the purposes of the principle of equivalence between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, must ending of the employment contract due to ‘objective circumstances’ under Article 49(1)(c) ET [Estatuto de los Trabajadores: Workers’ Statute] and its ending on ‘objective grounds’ under Article 52 ET be regarded as ‘comparable situations’ and does, therefore, the difference between the compensation payable in either case constitute unequal treatment between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, prohibited by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP? (1)











2.a)


If so, must the social-policy objectives legitimising the creation of the ‘contrato de relevo’ model of contract also be deemed to justify, under clause 4.1 of the abovementioned framework agreement, the difference in treatment relating to the lower amount of compensation for termination of the employment relationship when the employer freely decides that such a ‘contrato de relevo’ should be for a fixed term?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Case T-243/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, chemical product, equal treatment, market approval








C_2017221EN.01003101.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/31





Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA
(Case T-243/17)
(2017/C 221/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany) and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissibble and well-founded;










—


annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) concerning the inclusion of the company Sasol Chemie GmbH & Co. KG, as active supplier for the substance 1-Propanol on the list provided by Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1) (the ‘Article 95 List’) for product types 1, 2 and 4;










—


order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 95(1), second paragraph, of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012






—


The applicants put forward that ECHA has failed to follow the legal conditions for the inclusion of a company such as Sasol in the Article 95 List as provided for in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, as it was not possible for Sasol to have submitted a complete dossier to ECHA. According to the applicants, its dossier cannot have included either a copy of the Comet Assay test or a letter of access granting reference rights to that test.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination






—


The applicants put forward that by accepting the dossier submitted by Sasol for the purpose of Article 95 List inclusion as complete, ECHA has treated companies in a similar situation differently without objective justification in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the level playing field established by Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 as well as the creation of unfair competition






—


The applicants claim that by including Sasol on the Article 95 List, ECHA has failed to apply the rules under Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 which are designed to ensure a level playing field between those companies such as the applicants which have taken part in the 1-Propanol review and those, such as Sasol, which have not.










(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, p. 1).
Case T-246/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017195EN.01004201.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/42





Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)
(Case T-246/17)
(2017/C 195/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word element ‘Национальный Продукт’ — registration application No 14 747 513

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 in Case R 1017/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-250/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — avanti v EUIPO (avanti)
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, database management system, employment service, information technology, personnel administration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_2017195EN.01004302.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/43





Action brought on 24 April 2017 — avanti v EUIPO (avanti)
(Case T-250/17)
(2017/C 195/58)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: avanti GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Bahmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word element ‘avanti’ — registration No 14 646 038

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 801/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow registration of the mark applied for on 6 October 2015 at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) under No 01464038 and publish the mark in order to progress the application procedure.





Plea in law







—


infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Order of the President of 24 April 2017 — In Case E-20/16 — Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management v EFTA Surveillance Authority
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of capital, fundamental rights, national currency, residence








C_2017303EN.01000601.xml










14.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/6





ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
of 24 April 2017
In Case E-20/16
Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management v EFTA Surveillance Authority
(2017/C 303/07)
Application for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 207/16/COL of 23 November 2016 closing a complaint against Iceland in the field of free movement of capital (capital controls), the President of the Court made an Order of 24 April 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Case E-20/16 is removed from the Register.










2.


The applicants are to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case T-584/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — HF v Parliament (Civil Service — Member of the auxiliary contract staff — Article 3b of the CEOS — Successive employments as a member of the auxiliary contract staff — Fixed-term contracts — Decision not to renew — Abuse of power — Request for assistance — Right to be heard — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2017-04-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, legal aid, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment








C_2017178EN.01001402.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/14





Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — HF v Parliament
(Case T-584/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of the auxiliary contract staff - Article 3b of the CEOS - Successive employments as a member of the auxiliary contract staff - Fixed-term contracts - Decision not to renew - Abuse of power - Request for assistance - Right to be heard - Non-contractual liability))
(2017/C 178/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant, essentially as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms HF to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-14/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).