do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-40/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — Industrial plastic bags sector — Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company — Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court — Principle of effective legal protection)
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, plastics industry, restriction on competition, right to justice, rights of the defence, subsidiary








C_2014039EN.01000201.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-40/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)
2014/C 39/02
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-79/06 Sachsa Verpackung v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector and an application to vary that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs of this appeal.






(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
Case T-38/12: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2013 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, road safety, technology, trade-mark law








C_2014045EN.01003102.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/31





Order of the General Court of 26 November 2013 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER)
(Case T-38/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2014/C 45/51
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pips BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van den Berg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and D. Kämper, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2011 (Case R 2420/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG and Pips BV.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2013345EN.01000201.xml










26.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

25 November 2013
2013/C 345/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3514




JPY


Japanese yen


137,57




DKK


Danish krone


7,4585




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83480




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8915




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2311




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,2755




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,269




HUF


Hungarian forint


298,21




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7030




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1916




RON


Romanian leu


4,4473




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7030




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4754




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4272




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4773




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6458




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6924




KRW


South Korean won


1 432,79




ZAR


South African rand


13,5965




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2344




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6424




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 878,01




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3506




PHP


Philippine peso


59,267




RUB


Russian rouble


44,5414




THB


Thai baht


43,218




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0956




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5598




INR


Indian rupee


84,4560






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-619/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Carla Faita against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11, Faita v EESC
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, rights of the defence








C_2014024EN.01003601.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/36





Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Carla Faita against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11, Faita v EESC
(Case T-619/13 P)
2014/C 24/67
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Carla Faita (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, M. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11 (Faita v EESC);










—


order the EESC to pay the appellant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from the breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care;










—


order the EESC to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law as regards the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure and the principle of sound administration, the Civil Service Tribunal not having found fault with the fact that the rejection of the complaint contained identical reasoning, word for word, to that to that in the rejection of the application against which the complaint was brought, despite the fact that the complaint contained different arguments to those in the application (relating to paragraphs 44 and 65 to 67 of the contested judgment).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging first, an infringement of the rights of the defence, to the extent that the appellant did not have the opportunity to make an argument during the procedure in front of the Civil Service Tribunal when the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appointing authority relied on a fifth implicit reason in its decision to reject the appellant’s application and, second, an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal undertook an analysis of the conditions laid down in Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in its review of legality of the application of Article 24 of those Regulations (relating to paragraphs 94 and onwards in the judgment under appeal).
ANNEX to the Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) N° [..]/2013 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Black Sea, authorised catch, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing controls, fishing rights, sea fish













EUR-Lex - 52013PC0818 - EN











|



52013PC0818

ANNEX to the Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) N° [..]/2013 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Black Sea /* COM/2013/0818 final */









ANNEX
to the
Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION
(EU) N° [..]/2013
fixing for 2014 the fishing
opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in
the Black Sea
Catch
limits 
The following tables set out the quotas (in
tonnes live weight, except where otherwise specified) by stock, and conditions functionally
linked thereto, where appropriate. 
Fish stocks are referred to following the
alphabetical order of the Latin names of the species. For the purposes of this
Regulation, the following comparative table of Latin names and common names is provided:
 Scientific name || Alpha-3 code || Common name 
 Psetta maxima || TUR || Turbot 
 Sprattus sprattus || SPR || Sprat 
   ||   ||   ||   || 
 Species: || Turbot || Zone: || EU waters in the Black Sea || 
   || Psetta maxima ||   || TUR/F37.4.2.C. ||   ||   ||   || 
 Bulgaria || 37 ||   || Analytical TAC Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall not apply. Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall not apply.   || 
 Romania || 37 ||   || 
   ||   ||   || 
 EU || 74 || (1) || 
   ||   ||   || 
 TAC || Not relevant || 
 _________ ||   ||   || 
  (1)          No fishing activity, including transhipment, taking on board, landing and first sale shall be permitted from 15 April to 15 June 2014   || 
 Species: || Sprat ||   || Zone: || EU waters in the Black Sea ||   || 
   || Sprattus sprattus ||   || SPR/F37.4.2.C || 
 Bulgaria || 8032.5 ||   || Analytical TAC Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall not apply. Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall not apply.   || 
 Romania || 3442.5 ||   || 
   ||   ||   || 
 EU || 11475 ||   || 
   ||   ||   || 
 TAC || Not relevant ||   || 
   ||   ||   ||   ||
Case C-58/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Groupe Gascogne SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — Industrial plastic bags sector — Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company — Taking into account the total turnover of the group in order to calculate the upper limit of the fine — Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court — Principle of effective legal protection)
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, plastics industry, restriction on competition, right to justice, rights of the defence, subsidiary








C_2014039EN.01000301.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Groupe Gascogne SA v European Commission
(Case C-58/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Taking into account the total turnover of the group in order to calculate the upper limit of the fine - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)
2014/C 39/04
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Groupe Gascogne SA (represented by: P. Hubert and E. Durand, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-72/06 Groupe Gascogne v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part and variation of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector, and an application to vary that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs of this appeal.






(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
Special Report No 12/2013 ‘Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent?’
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, European Commission, budgetary control, budgetary expenditure, rural development








C_2013345EN.01001701.xml










26.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/17





Special Report No 12/2013 ‘Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent?’
2013/C 345/05
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2013 ‘Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7097 — Bridgepoint/Orlando/La Gardenia Beauty)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, cosmetic product, distributive trades, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2013345EN.01001901.xml










26.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/19





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7097 — Bridgepoint/Orlando/La Gardenia Beauty)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 345/07






1.


On 18 November 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 undertakings Bridgepoint Advisers Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom) and Orlando Italy Management SA (‘Orlando’, Luxembourg) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of La Gardenia Beauty SpA (‘La Gardenia’, Italy), currently solely controlled by Orlando, by way of other means.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Bridgepoint: private equity investments and funding,










—


for Orlando: private equity investments and funding,










—


for La Gardenia: retail distribution of perfumes and cosmetic products in specialized stores in Italy.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7097 — Bridgepoint/Orlando/La Gardenia Beauty, 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’).
Appointment of the Hearing Officer
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: appointment of staff, audit, competition, self-employed person








C_2013345EN.01001601.xml










26.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/16





Appointment of the Hearing Officer
2013/C 345/04
On 16 October 2013, the Commission appointed Mr Joos STRAGIER to the post of Hearing Officer, in accordance with Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition cases (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21).
Corrigendum to the notice from the Ministry of the Environment of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons ( OJ C 303, 19.10.2013 )
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: Italy
Subjects: Adriatic Sea, Italy, extraction of oil, hydrocarbon, petroleum exploration, public contract








C_2013345EN.01003001.xml










26.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/30





Corrigendum to the notice from the Ministry of the Environment of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 303 of 19 October 2013
)
2013/C 345/13
On page 2 of the contents and on page 17, the title of the notice should read as follows:
for:

read:

on page 17, second paragraph:
for:

‘Within 3 months of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, interested parties may under the rules in force submit applications for authorisation for oil and gas prospection and exploration in the reorganised area according to the geographical coordinates listed below.’,

read:

‘After 3 months from the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, interested parties may under the rules in force submit applications for authorisation for oil and gas prospection and exploration in the reorganised area according to the geographical coordinates listed below.’.
Case T-636/13: Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014039EN.01002401.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/24





Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)
(Case T-636/13)
2014/C 39/42
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4) to the effect that MSI Technology GmbH’s application of 20 June 2011 for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark ‘MovieStation’ is rejected and that MSI Technology GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of that application;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action before the Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MovieStation’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 5743257

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: MSI Technology GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-620/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA
Date: 2013-11-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: inter-company cooperation, share capital, small and medium-sized enterprises, tax collection








C_2014024EN.01003602.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/36





Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA
(Case T-620/13)
2014/C 24/68
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Marchi Industriale (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri and F. Donati, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul and thereby declare invalid Decision No SME/2013/3747 of the European Chemicals Agency, thus rendering inoperative each of the effects of that decision, including the annulment of the invoices issued for the recovery of higher taxes and penalties purportedly owing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the European Chemicals Agency that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), denying the applicant the benefits provided for in that regulation and providing that it is to pay the fees and charges allegedly owing.
The applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging total failure to state reasons, in so far as, notwithstanding the detailed documentary information provided to challenge the calculation criteria used to determine the size of the undertaking, the defendant failed to take any account the arguments put forward.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that data relating to the company Essemar SpA, in which Marchi Industriale has a holding, was incorrectly taken into account.






—


It is submitted in this regard that, contrary to what is claimed by the defendant, Esseco Group srl is not connected, even indirectly, with the applicant and cannot, in any event, be regarded as a ‘partner enterprise’. While Esseco Group has a 50.0005% holding in the share capital of Essemar, the remainder of the share capital in Essemar, amounting to 49.9995%, is held by the applicant. However, while, on a formal level, Esseco Group holds the majority of the share capital in Essemar, it does not have the majority of voting rights within that company. Therefore, there does not exist between Esseco Group and the applicant the special relationship referred to in Article 3(2) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 214, p. 36).