do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission (Appeals — Regional State aid — Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia — New aid — Alteration to an existing aid scheme — Corrective decision — Possibility of adopting such a decision — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) — Incentive effect of the aid — Protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, State aid, aid to undertakings, hotel industry, principle of legal certainty, regional aid








C_2013225EN.01001701.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/17





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regional State aid - Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia - New aid - Alteration to an existing aid scheme - Corrective decision - Possibility of adopting such a decision - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) - Incentive effect of the aid - Protection of legitimate expectations)
2013/C 225/27
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: HGA Srl., Gimar srl, Coghene Costruzioni srl, Camping Pini e Mare di Cogoni Franco & C. Sas, Immobiliare 92 srl, Gardena srl, Hotel Stella 2000 srl, Vadis srl, Macpep srl, San Marco srl, Due lune SpA, Hotel Mistral di Bruno Madeddu & C. Sas, L’Esagono di Mario Azara & C. Snc, Le Buganville srl, (formerly Le Buganville di Cogoni Giuseppe & C. Snc), Le Dune srl, (formerly Le Dune di Stefanelli Vincenzo & C. Snc) (represented by: G. Dore, F. Ciulli and A. Vinci, avvocati) (C-630/11 P), Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi and G. Mameli, avvocati) (C-631/11 P), Timsas srl (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Pinna, avvocati) (C-632/11 P), Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA (represented by: D. Dodaro and R. Masuri, avvocati) (C-633/11 P)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, C. Urraca Caviedes and G. Conte, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-394/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission by which that court dismissed the applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning aid schemes ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid No 272/98’ (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9) by which the Regione autonoma della Sardegna granted subsidies for initial investments in the hotel industry in Sardinia — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
Case C-193/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Designation of vulnerable zones — Excessive nitrate content — Eutrophication — Obligation of four-yearly revision)
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, chemical salt, infringement of EU law, pollution from agricultural sources, water pollution, water protection








C_2013225EN.01003301.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/33





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-193/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Designation of vulnerable zones - Excessive nitrate content - Eutrophication - Obligation of four-yearly revision)
2013/C 225/55
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and Annex I thereto — Incomplete identification of vulnerable zones — Excessive nitrate content — Eutrophication — Incorrect four-yearly revision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, and Annex I thereto;










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
Case C-346/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Community word mark MILRAM — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM)
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01004602.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/46





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lactimilk SA
(Case C-346/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Community word mark MILRAM - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks RAM)
2013/C 225/80
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (represented by: W. Berlit, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent), Lactimilk SA (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, abogado)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch v OHIM — LACTIMILK (MILRAM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2010 (joined cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Lactimilk SA and Nordmilch AG — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
Case T-636/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar Textil (MY drap) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MY drap — Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01007402.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/74





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar Textil (MY drap)
(Case T-636/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MY drap - Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 225/164
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hostel drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aznar Textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2011 (Case R 2127/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Aznar Textil, SL and Hostel drap, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hostel drap, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
Case C-436/12 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeal — State aid — Aid to undertakings established in the territory of Venice and Chioggia)
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, Veneto, aid to undertakings, intra-EU trade, proof, social-security contribution








C_2013225EN.01005102.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/51





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v European Commission, Italian Republic
(Case C-436/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid to undertakings established in the territory of Venice and Chioggia)
2013/C 225/91
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veglianiti, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), Italian Republic

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T-264/00 Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws No 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — Whether intra Community trade is affected — Impact on competition — Extent of control — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
Case C-322/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2013 — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Autonomous Province of Bolzano, EU law - national law, Italy, application of EU law, discrimination on the basis of nationality, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, use of languages








C_2013226EN.01000901.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2013 — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná
(Case C-322/13)
(2013/C 226/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Tribunale di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer

Defendant: Katerina Pokorná

Question referred

Whether the interpretation of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU precludes the application of provisions of national law, such as those in dispute here, which grant the right [to use] the German language in civil law proceedings pending before the courts in the province of Bolzano only to Italian citizens domiciled in the province of Bolzano, but not to nationals of other EU Member States, whether or not they are domiciled in the province of Bolzano.
Case T-94/11: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — AU Optronics v Commission
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: electronic equipment, materials technology, rights of the defence, telecommunications industry








C_2013225EN.01008302.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/83





Order of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — AU Optronics v Commission
(Case T-94/11) (1)

2013/C 225/187
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6930 — KKR/SMCP)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2013167EN.01000701.xml










13.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/7





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6930 — KKR/SMCP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 167/03
On 7 June 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6930. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-511/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information — Evidence — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Amount of the fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstance — Repeated infringement)
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, fine, fixing of prices, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, rubber industry, trade information








C_2013225EN.01001201.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/12





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission
(Case C-511/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information - Evidence - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Amount of the fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstance - Repeated infringement)
2013/C 225/18
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari and G. Conte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/05 Polimeri Europa v Commission by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber) or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;










2.


Orders Versalis SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6906 — KKR/Gardner Denver) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, management, merger control, processing industry, spare part








C_2013167EN.01001801.xml










13.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6906 — KKR/Gardner Denver)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 167/06






1.


On 4 June 2013, 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 KKR & Co. LP (‘KKR’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the undertaking Gardner Denver, Inc. (‘GDI’, USA) by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KKR: the provision of a broad range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients,










—


for GDI: manufacture and sale of industrial compressors, blowers, pumps, loading arms and fuel systems.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC 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 the EC Merger Regulation (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. 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 number COMP/M.6906 — KKR/Gardner Denver, 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 ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-287/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Appeal — State aid — Loan granted by the Italian Republic to the airline company Alitalia — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible — Sale of assets of Alitalia — Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Interested party — Admissibility — Serious difficulties — Competence — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2013-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, competition, liquidation, market prices, transport company








C_2013225EN.01003601.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/36





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA
(Case C-287/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Loan granted by the Italian Republic to the airline company Alitalia - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible - Sale of assets of Alitalia - Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Interested party - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Competence - Duty to state reasons)
2013/C 225/61
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros,)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and D. Grespan), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA, (represented by: G. Bellitti, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012 in Case T-123/09 Ryanair v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking, first, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 6743 of 12 November 2008 on the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to Alitalia (Aid No C 26/08) (ex NN 31/08) (OJ 2009 L 52, p. 3), in so far as that decision did not order the recovery of the aid from Alitalia’s successors, and, second, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008 declaring that the procedure for selling off the assets of the Alitalia airline company, in the context of the extraordinary administrative procedure set to lead to the liquidation of that airline, does not constitute State aid, provided that the Italian authorities respect their commitments to ensure that the transactions will be carried out at the market price (Aid N 510/2008) (OJ 2009 C 46, p. 6)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Ryanair Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA;










3.


Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs






(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.