do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-510/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Dessi v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — Appraisal and promotion year 2012 — Decision of the Appeal Committee — Scope of review — Staff representatives — Discrimination)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, anti-discriminatory measure, promotion, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017283EN.01004501.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/45





Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Dessi v EIB
(Case T-510/16) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - Appraisal and promotion year 2012 - Decision of the Appeal Committee - Scope of review - Staff representatives - Discrimination))
(2017/C 283/68)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nathalie Dessi (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: A. Senes and L. Payot, and subsequently by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and E. Raimond, subsequently by: E. Raimond and G. Faedo, and finally by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the EIB Appeal Committee of 23 October 2013, by which it rejected the applicant’s request for a review of her staff report for 2012 in that that report did not recommend to the President of the EIB that she be promoted from function group F to function group E.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the EIB Appeal Committee of 23 October 2013, by which it rejected Ms Nathalie Dessi’s request for a review of her staff report for 2012 in that that report did not recommend to the President of the EIB that she be promoted from function group F to function group E;










2.


Orders the EIB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-8/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-347/14 INTP: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Yanukovych v Council (Procedure — Interpretation of an order)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, death, economic sanctions, inheritance, international sanctions, legal expenses, natural person, trade restriction








C_2017347EN.01002501.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/25





Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Yanukovych v Council
(Case T-347/14 INTP) (1)

((Procedure - Interpretation of an order))
(2017/C 347/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by T. Beazley QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interpretation of the order of 12 July 2016, Yanukovych v Council (T-347/14, EU:T:2016:433).

Operative part of the order







1.


Point 3 of the operative part of order of 12 July 2016, Yanukovych v Council (T-347/14), must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the claim for annulment made in the application, it covers both costs incurred by Mr Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych and those incurred by Mrs Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych.










2.


Mrs Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, on the one hand, and the Council of the European Union, on the other hand, shall each bear their own costs relating to the interpretation proceedings.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.










4.


The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the order interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this order.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-752/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Combaro v Commission (Customs union — Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Latvia — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Reimbursement and remission of import duties — Import of woven linen fabrics from Latvia — Fairness clause — Special situation — Deception or obvious negligence — Commission decision finding that the remission of import duties was not justified)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Latvia, association agreement (EU), customs regulations, customs union, equal treatment, flax, import (EU), suspension of customs duties, textile product








C_2017283EN.01003002.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/30





Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Combaro v Commission
(Case T-752/14) (1)

((Customs union - Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Latvia - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Reimbursement and remission of import duties - Import of woven linen fabrics from Latvia - Fairness clause - Special situation - Deception or obvious negligence - Commission decision finding that the remission of import duties was not justified))
(2017/C 283/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Combaro SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4908 final of 16 July 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 461 415,62.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 4908 final of 16 July 2014 rejecting Combaro SA’s request for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 461 415,62;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Combaro.






(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Case T-432/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (медведь) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark медведь — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, alcoholic beverage, foodstuff, meat, meat product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01004401.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/44





Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (медведь)
(Case T-432/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark медведь - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 283/67)
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 (represented by: P. Ivanov and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2016 (Case R 240/2016-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign медведь as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017233EN.01000201.xml










19.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 July 2017
(2017/C 233/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1555 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4371 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88780 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5658 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1025 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3065 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,080 




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2029 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5600 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0750 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4565 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4548 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0176 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5713 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5793 




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,89 




ZAR


South African rand


14,9464 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8001 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4138 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 368,15 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9513 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,597 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,1676 




THB


Thai baht


38,831 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6623 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,2288 




INR


Indian rupee


74,3370 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-464/16 P: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — HI v Commission (Appeal — Civil service – — Project funded by the European Union — Conflict of interest — Disciplinary action — Downgrading — Dismissal of the action at first instance — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, conflict of interest, demotion, disciplinary proceedings, pay scale








C_2017300EN.01003101.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/31





Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — HI v Commission
(Case T-464/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service – - Project funded by the European Union - Conflict of interest - Disciplinary action - Downgrading - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2017/C 300/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Single Judge) of 10 June 2016, HI v Commission (F-133/15, EU:F:2016:127), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


HI shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Case T-812/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, admissibility, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, financial institution








C_2017293EN.01003201.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/32





Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission
(Case T-812/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 293/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and 19 other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the order (represented by: P. Fajardo, lawyer, J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, and K. Bacon QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and S. Jaulino, acting as Agents, and by M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 on State aid SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal — Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other parties whose names are set out in the Annex to this order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.










3.


The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case T-716/16: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé familiale v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, adhesive, admissibility, chemical product, common customs tariff, customs union, specification of tariff heading








C_2017293EN.01003301.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/33





Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé familiale v Commission
(Case T-716/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings - Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 293/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) and Pfizer Santé familiale (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Pfizer Ltd and Pfizer Santé familiale shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Case C-143/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Age discrimination — On-call employment contract which may be concluded with persons under 25 years of age — Automatic termination of the employment contract when the worker reaches 25 years of age)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, casual employment, equal treatment, termination of employment, work contract, young person








C_2017300EN.01000401.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/4





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro
(Case C-143/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Age discrimination - On-call employment contract which may be concluded with persons under 25 years of age - Automatic termination of the employment contract when the worker reaches 25 years of age))
(2017/C 300/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

Defendant: Antonino Bordonaro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(1), Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises an employer to conclude an on-call contract with a worker of under 25 years of age, whatever the nature of the services to be provided, and to dismiss that worker as soon as he reaches the age of 25 years, since that provision pursues a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and the means laid down for the attainment of that objective are appropriate and necessary.


(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case T-457/17: Action brought on 19 July 2017 — Medisana v EUIPO (happy life)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, reproductive health, trade-mark law








C_2017300EN.01003701.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/37





Action brought on 19 July 2017 — Medisana v EUIPO (happy life)
(Case T-457/17)
(2017/C 300/46)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Medisana AG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘happy life’ — Application for registration No 15 164 023

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 in Case R 1965/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-666/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Article 95 — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Publication of a list of active substances — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, market approval, marketing standard, supplier








C_2017300EN.01000902.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/9





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency
(Case C-666/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Making available on the market and use of biocidal products - Article 95 - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Publication of a list of active substances - Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance))
(2017/C 300/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard and K. Van Maldegem, avocats, and P. Sellar, Advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and C. Buchanan, Agents, and P. Oliver, Barrister)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH shall pay the costs.










3.


Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), BASF SE and Oxea GmbH shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Case T-699/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Parliament v Meyrl (Appeal — Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Contested decision annulled at first instance — Dismissal — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of power)
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: dismissal, right to justice, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2017283EN.01004701.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/47





Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Parliament v Meyrl
(Case T-699/16) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Contested decision annulled at first instance - Dismissal - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Abuse of power))
(2017/C 283/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Sonja Meyrl (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016, Meyrl v Parliament (F-147/15, EU:F:2016:157), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016, Meyrl v Parliament (F-147/15);










2.


Dismisses the action brought by Ms Sonja Meyrl before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-147/15;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings;










4.


Orders Ms Meyrl to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance, including those of the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.