do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-27/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — AC-Treuhand v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue — Fines — Application for annulment — Meaning of ‘undertaking’ — Principle of the legality of offences and penalties — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Late notification of the investigation — Maximum of 10 % of turnover — Punishment of two infringements in one decision — Concept of a single infringement — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Duration of the administrative procedure — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Symbolic fine — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, fine, infringement of EU law, jurisdiction, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, thermal insulation








C_2014078EN.01000602.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/6





Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — AC-Treuhand v Commission
(Case T-27/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue - Fines - Application for annulment - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ - Principle of the legality of offences and penalties - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period - Rights of the defence - Late notification of the investigation - Maximum of 10 % of turnover - Punishment of two infringements in one decision - Concept of a single infringement - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Duration of the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Symbolic fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)
2014/C 78/12
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: AC-Treuhand AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Bodenstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
Case C-223/13: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 — Referral to the General Court of the European Union)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU statistics, General Court (EU), consumer price, housing, price index








C_2014175EN.01001701.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/17





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission
(Case C-223/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 - Referral to the General Court of the European Union))
2014/C 175/20
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14)

Operative part of the order







1.


Refer Case C-223/13 back to the General Court of the European Union.










2.


Costs are reserved.






(1)  OJ C 189, 29.06.2013
Case C-528/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz (Request for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 78/660/EEC — Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company — Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial control, parent company, publication of accounts, right of establishment, subsidiary








C_2014093EN.01001401.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/14





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz
(Case C-528/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 78/660/EEC - Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company - Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State)
2014/C 93/21
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mömax Logistik GmbH

Defendant: Bundesamt für Justiz

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Bonn — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU and Article 57(1) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Right of the Member States not to apply to the dependent companies of any group governed by their national laws the provisions of Directive 78/660/EEC concerning the content, auditing and publication of the annual accounts where the dominant company of the group is subject to the laws of a Member State — Legislation of a Member State providing for that possibility where the dominant company is subject to the laws of that Member State and precluding it where it is subject to the laws of another Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006, must be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State which exempts a subsidiary undertaking governed by the law of that State from the provisions of that directive concerning the content, auditing and publication of annual accounts only if the parent company is also governed by the law of that State.


(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
European Parliament decision of 6 February 2014 to raise no objections to draft Commission Regulation (EU) No…/… amending Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 in particular to determine the volumes of greenhouse gas emission allowances to be auctioned in 2013-2020 (D031326/02 — 2014/2523(RPS))
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, EU environmental policy, air quality, auction sale, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions








C_2017093EN.01044101.xml










24.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/441





P7_TA(2014)0097
Non-objection to an implementing measure: greenhouse gas emission allowances to be auctioned in 2013-2020
European Parliament decision of 6 February 2014 to raise no objections to draft Commission Regulation (EU) No…/… amending Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 in particular to determine the volumes of greenhouse gas emission allowances to be auctioned in 2013-2020 (D031326/02 — 2014/2523(RPS))
(2017/C 093/63)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to draft Commission Regulation (EU) No. …/… amending Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 in particular to determine the volumes of greenhouse gas emission allowances to be auctioned in 2013-2020,










—


having regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1),










—


having regard to the opinion delivered on 8 January 2014 by the committee referred to in Article 23 of the above directive,










—


having regard to the Commission’s letter of 7 January 2014 asking Parliament to declare that it will raise no objections to the draft regulation,










—


having regard to the letter from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs of 30 January 2014,










—


having regard to Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (2),










—


having regard to Rules 88(4)(d) and 87a(6) of its Rules of Procedure,












1.


Declares that it has no objections to the draft Commission regulation;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Commission, and, for information, to the Council.






(1)  OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32.

(2)  OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.
Case T-40/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Application for annulment — Rights of the defence — Late notification of Commission’s investigation — Duration of the administrative procedure — Liability of a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Duration of the infringements — Limitation — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Fines imposed on a parent company differing in amount from those imposed on a subsidiary — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, fine, infringement of EU law, jurisdiction, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, subsidiary, thermal insulation








C_2014078EN.01000701.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/7





Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission
(Case T-40/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Application for annulment - Rights of the defence - Late notification of Commission’s investigation - Duration of the administrative procedure - Liability of a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Duration of the infringements - Limitation - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Fines imposed on a parent company differing in amount from those imposed on a subsidiary - Unlimited jurisdiction)
2014/C 78/13
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery, S. Thibault-Liger, A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, J. Bourke and A. Biolan, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014135EN.01004801.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/48






Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)
(Case T-84/14)
(2014/C 135/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445
         

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7130 — Frey Automobil Holding Deutschland/Mitsubishi Motors Europe/Mitsubishi Motors Deutschland)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, distribution business, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2014035EN.01000101.xml










6.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7130 — Frey Automobil Holding Deutschland/Mitsubishi Motors Europe/Mitsubishi Motors Deutschland)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 35/01
On 31 January 2014, 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 32014M7130. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, infringement of EU law, jurisdiction, restriction on competition, thermal insulation








C_2014078EN.01000601.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/6





Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission
(Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Unlimited jurisdiction)
2014/C 78/11
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J. P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-23/10); and CECA SA (La Garenne-Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J.-P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-24/10)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Arkema France and CECA SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
Case C-509/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Grant of a recreational boating licence — Condition of residency in the issuing country — Restriction for non-residents — Maintaining maritime safety — Public policy)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, discrimination on the basis of nationality, driving licence, equal treatment, free movement of persons, freedom to provide services, pleasure craft, residence








C_2014093EN.01001301.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/13





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda
(Case C-509/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Grant of a recreational boating licence - Condition of residency in the issuing country - Restriction for non-residents - Maintaining maritime safety - Public policy)
2014/C 93/20
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos

Defendant: Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal — Interpretation of Articles 18, 20, 45, 52 and 62 TFEU — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Free movement of persons and freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Provision imposing a condition of residency within the national territory for the grant of a recreational boating licence.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a condition of residence within the national territory for European Union citizens seeking to obtain a recreational boating licence in that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
Case C-60/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, control of State aid, gaming establishment, infringement of EU law








C_2014093EN.01002101.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/21





Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-60/14)
2014/C 93/34
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and Ι. Zerbas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision (1) of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, since it has not taken within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of unlawful State aid from the Casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu and Thessaloniki, and, in any event, since it has not fully informed the Commission of the exact amount to be recovered (principal and interest) from all the beneficiaries of the unlawful State aid and of the other measures which it took in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have recovered the unlawful State aid by 25 September 2011.










2.


The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have informed the Commission of the action which it has undertaken in order to recover the unlawful State aid, and the total amount to be recovered, by 25 July 2011.










3.


The Hellenic Republic has not fulfilled any of the above obligations within the prescribed time-limits.






(1)  Decision of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C-16/10 implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, pp 25-45)