do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-599/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL — Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing)
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, deep-frozen product, frozen product, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2013304EN.01001101.xml










19.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/11





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)
(Case T-599/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL - Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to a fair hearing)
2013/C 304/20
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Secklehner and C. Ofner, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially R. Manea, subsequently K. Klüpfel, and then K. Klüpfel and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Peter Lenger (Weinheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Pfefferkorn, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurocool Logistik GmbH and Mr Peter Lenger

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010-1) in so far as it concerns the services, referred to in the trade mark application, of ‘development of software for the storage, commissioning and transport of chilled and frozen goods’ in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘services of a freight forwarding company’, in Class 39 of that agreement, covered by the earlier mark;










2.


Rejects the opposition in so far as it concerns the services referred to in point 1;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders Eurocool Logistik GmbH, OHIM and Mr Peter Lenger each to bear their own respective costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court;










5.


Orders OHIM to pay half of the costs incurred by Eurocool Logistik in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.






(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6977 — OMERS/AIMCO/VUE)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: digital technology, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, processing industry








C_2013257EN.01001001.xml










6.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/10





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6977 — OMERS/AIMCO/VUE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 257/03
On 25 July 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 32013M6977. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case T-487/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — Navarra de Servicios y Technologías v Commission
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, abuse of power, broadcasting, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, services of general interest, trading operation








C_2013313EN.01003401.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/34





Action brought on 6 September 2013 — Navarra de Servicios y Technologías v Commission
(Case T-487/13)
2013/C 313/64
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Navarra de Servicios y Technologías SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: A. Andérez González, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision in so far as it affects the applicant, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU.
The applicant alleges, in that respect, that there was no State aid, since in the present case there is no State intervention through the transfer of State resources, no advantage in favour of undertakings carrying out an economic activity and no distortion of competition or threat to trade between the Member States.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(2) TFEU and of the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997.
In this respect, the applicant alleges that






—


the services of general economic interest, in respect of whose configuration, organisation and funding the Member States have a wide margin of discretion, are of a lawful nature.










—


it did not obtain a more favourable competitive position;










—


the Altmark criteria were observed in the present case, in that there are clearly defined, and expressly transferred, public service obligations and a detailed and an objective economic quantification was carried out that does not exceed the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligation.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that there is an objective of common interest in the present case, in respect of which the disputed measure is suitable and proportionate and does not provoke unnecessary distortions on the market.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power between the objective of the contested decision and the ultimate purpose pursued through it, as well as a manifest disproportion between the theoretical aim pursued and the consequences of its application, which are contrary to the general interest and favour the commercial and economic interests of a specific operator or operators.
Case T-483/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission (Plant-protection products — Active substance flurprimidol — Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 — Accelerated assessment procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: plant health product, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, withdrawal from the market








C_2013304EN.01001701.xml










19.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/17





Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013 — Sepro Europe v Commission
(Case T-483/11) (1)

(Plant-protection products - Active substance flurprimidol - Non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 - Accelerated assessment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
2013/C 304/28
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sepro Europe Ltd (Harrogate, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/328/EU of 1 June 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 192)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sepro Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
Case C-478/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, agricultural production, genetically modified organism, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, traceability








C_2013336EN.01001003.xml










16.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/10





Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-478/13)
2013/C 336/22
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, in view of (a) its failure to impose, within the national legal system, an obligation to notify the competent Polish authorities of the locations at which GMO crops are being grown pursuant to Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, (1) (b) its failure to establish a register for recording the locations at which such GMO crops are being grown, and (c) its failure to provide information to the public on the locations at which such GMO crops are being grown, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of Directive 2001/18/EC;










—


order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2001/18/EC had to be transposed expired on 17 October 2002.


(1)  OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6906 — KKR/Gardner Denver)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, management, merger control, processing industry, spare part








C_2013257EN.01001002.xml










6.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/10





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6906 — KKR/Gardner Denver)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 257/04
On 5 July 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 32013M6906. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Inspection powers of the Commission — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, competition, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2013304EN.01001501.xml










19.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/15





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission
(Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Inspection powers of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)
2013/C 304/25
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany); DB Mobility Logistics AG (Berlin); DB Energie GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany); DB Netz AG (Frankfurt-am-Main); DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany); DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (Mainz); Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) (Bodenheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, O. Mross and J. Brückner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially, in Cases T-289/11 and T-290/11, by: M. Muñoz Pérez, then, in Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11, by: S. Centeno Huerta, abogados del Estado); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents); and EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X.A. Lewis, M. Schneider and M. Moustakali, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011)1774 of 14 March 2011, C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011 ordering Deutsche Bahn AG and all its subsidiaries, to submit to inspections under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH,; DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-349/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark REVARO — Earlier international word mark RECARO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013304EN.01001902.xml










19.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/19





Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO)
(Case T-349/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark REVARO - Earlier international word mark RECARO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 304/33
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rudolf Leiner GmbH (Sankt Pölten, Austria) (represented by: W. Emberger, I. Rudnay and L. Emberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 May 2012 (Case R 482/2011-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH and Rudolf Leiner GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rudolf Leiner GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
Case C-479/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, book trade, electronic publishing








C_2013344EN.01004602.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/46





Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-479/13)
2013/C 344/80
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation; (2)











—


order French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 7 % from 1 January 2012, then of 5.5 % from 1 January 2013, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.
The Commission claims that under the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of the VAT directive, reduced rates of VAT may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. Category 6 of Annex III to the VAT directive does not mention the supply of digital books as being capable of being subject to a reduced rate of VAT. The Commission infers from that that the supply of electronic books must therefore be subject to the normal rate of VAT in accordance with Article 96 of the VAT directive. That is also confirmed, according to the Commission, by the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT. Finally, in support of its action, the Commission claims that the VAT Committee unanimously adopted, on 9 February 2011, guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013257EN.01001201.xml










6.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/12





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 September 2013
2013/C 257/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3202




JPY


Japanese yen


131,64




DKK


Danish krone


7,4584




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84310




SEK


Swedish krona


8,7751




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2390




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0480




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,737




HUF


Hungarian forint


302,35




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7026




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2867




RON


Romanian leu


4,4693




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7421




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4451




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3837




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,2392




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6754




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6862




KRW


South Korean won


1 448,64




ZAR


South African rand


13,5963




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0778




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5845




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 320,53




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3656




PHP


Philippine peso


58,697




RUB


Russian rouble


44,1225




THB


Thai baht


42,695




BRL


Brazilian real


3,1294




MXN


Mexican peso


17,7016




INR


Indian rupee


87,2850






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 780/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements ( OJ L 219, 15.8.2013 )
Date: 2013-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: health certificate, import (EU), import licence, live animal, third country, transit, veterinary inspection








L_2013238EN.01002301.xml










6.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 238/23







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 780/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 219 of 15 August 2013
)

On page 8, Model RUM-A:






—


point II.1.1(b):




for:







‘(b)


which at the date of issuing this certificate has been free for the past 12 months from rinderpest.’,





read:







‘(b)


which at the date of issuing this certificate has been free for 12 months from rinderpest.’;











—


text of footnote (1), at bottom of the page:




for:







‘(1)


[(b) they have not been vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease.’,





read:







‘(1)


(b) They have not been vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease.’.