do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-338/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Zink v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — No payment of the allowance for a number of years following an administrative error — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable period of time)
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018134EN.01002001.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/20





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Zink v Commission
(Case T-338/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - No payment of the allowance for a number of years following an administrative error - Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable period of time))
(2018/C 134/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Richard Zink (Bamako, Mali) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

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

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016, Zink v Commission (F-77/15, EU:F:2016:74), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016, Zink v Commission (F-77/15);










2.


Annuls the decision of 23 July 2014 of the Office for ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of the European Commission to the extent that, pursuant to that decision, the Commission had refused to pay Mr Richard Zink the expatriation allowance relating to the period between 1 September 2007 and 30 April 2009;










3.


Dismisses, as to the remainder, the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, registered as Case F-77/15;










4.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings on appeal and at first instance.






(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/282 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








C_2018073EN.01000601.xml










27.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/6





Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/282 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply
(2018/C 73/05)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/282 (3).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/282.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (4).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 54 I, 26.2.2018, p. 3.

(4)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8697 — APMH Invest/Mitsui/Maersk Product Tankers) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, logistics, maritime shipping, merger control








C_2018073EN.01001001.xml










27.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8697 — APMH Invest/Mitsui/Maersk Product Tankers)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 73/09)






1.


On 20 February 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


APMH Invest A/S (‘APMH Invest’, Denmark),










—


Mitsui & Co., Ltd (‘Mitsui’, Japan),










—


Maersk Product Tankers A/S (‘MPT’, Denmark).




APMH Invest and Mitsui acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of MPT, currently wholly owned by APMH Invest.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for APMH Invest: holding company with interests in banking, infrastructure and financial investments in fixed income and securities,
—   for Mitsui: global group pursuing business that ranges from product sales, worldwide logistics and financing through to the development of major infrastructure and other projects,
—   for MPT: active in the maritime tramp vessel sector for the transport of liquid bulk products, specifically refined oil products and certain chemicals.










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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8697 — APMH Invest/Mitsui/Maersk Product Tankers
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail:




COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax:




+32 22964301




Postal 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-161/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2018 — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, full-time employment, gender equality, income, part-time employment, pension scheme, retirement conditions, social security legislation








C_2018190EN.01000701.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2018 — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
(Case C-161/18)
(2018/C 190/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Violeta Villar Láiz

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

Questions referred







1.


Under Spanish law, in order to calculate a retirement pension, a percentage based on the number of years for which contributions have been paid throughout the person’s entire working life must be applied to the reference basis, which is calculated on the basis of earnings in the most recent years. Must a rule of national law, such as that in Article 247(a) and Article 248(3) of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), which reduces the number of qualifying years for the purpose of applying the percentage in the case of periods of part-time working, be considered contrary to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security? (1) Does Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC require that the number of years of contributions that are taken into account in order to determine the percentage to be applied in calculating the retirement pension be determined in the same way for full-time workers and part-time workers?










2.


Must a rule of national law such as that in dispute in the present proceedings be interpreted as also being contrary to Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, thus requiring the national court to give full effect to the Charter and to refrain from applying the disputed provisions of national law, without requesting or awaiting the prior setting aside of the provisions by legislative or other constitutional means?






(1)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
Case C-159/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2018 — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, traveller








C_2018166EN.01002301.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2018 — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd
(Case C-159/18)
(2018/C 166/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: André Moens

Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred

[The] request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) [is] worded as follows:






1.


Does the circumstance at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, fall to be classified under the notion of an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of 22 December 2008, Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771), or under that of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of recital 14 of that regulation, as interpreted by the judgment of 31 January 2013, McDonagh (C-12/11, EU:C:2013:43), or do those two concepts overlap?










2.


Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ capable of exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by that carrier is subjected to a significant delay?










3.


If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case T-263/17: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — SD v EIGE (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contracts — Decision not to renew — Request for renewal having the same purpose as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2018152EN.01003602.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/36





Order of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — SD v EIGE
(Case T-263/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contracts - Decision not to renew - Request for renewal having the same purpose as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 152/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (represented by: V. Langbakk, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the implied decision of EIGE dated 26 August 2016 rejecting the Applicant’s request dated 26 April 2016 for a second renewal of his contract of employment and, where necessary, annulment of the decision of EIGE of 20 January 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 October 2016 against the implied decision of 26 August 2016 and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


SD is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2018073EN.01000501.xml










27.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/5





Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
(2018/C 73/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/284 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/282 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012. The grounds for designation of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, before 12 March 2018, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.
The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 54 I, 26.2.2018, p. 8.

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 54 I, 26.2.2018, p. 3.
Case T-307/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision on granting a Euratom loan in support of the Ukraine safety upgrade program of nuclear power units — Partial refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations — Exception concerning the protection of commercial interests — Overriding public interest — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Application to documents relating to decisions taken under the EAEC Treaty)
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Euratom loan, Ukraine, access to EU information, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, provision of documents








C_2018134EN.01001902.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/19





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission
(Case T-307/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a Commission decision on granting a Euratom loan in support of the Ukraine safety upgrade program of nuclear power units - Partial refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations - Exception concerning the protection of commercial interests - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Application to documents relating to decisions taken under the EAEC Treaty))
(2018/C 134/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. Cunniffe, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially M. Holt and D. Robertson, and subsequently S. Brandon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 2319 final of 15 April 2016 refusing, on the basis of 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), access to several documents relating to Commission Decision C(2013) 3496 final of 24 June 2013 on granting a Euratom loan in support of the Ukraine safety upgrade program of nuclear power units.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CEE Bankwatch Network to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Case T-222/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Hansen Medical v EUIPO — Covidien (MAGELLAN) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MAGELLAN — Genuine use — Burden of proof — Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Procedural irregularity committed by the Cancellation Division — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Oral proceedings — Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01001901.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/19





Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Hansen Medical v EUIPO — Covidien (MAGELLAN)
(Case T-222/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark MAGELLAN - Genuine use - Burden of proof - Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Procedural irregularity committed by the Cancellation Division - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Oral proceedings - Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 134/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hansen Medical, Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Covidien AG (Neuhausen am Rheinfall, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Ingerl and D. Wiedemann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2016 (Cases R 3092/2014-2 and R 3118/2014-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Hansen Medical and Covidien.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hansen Medical, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.