do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative competition, job vacancy








CA2014180EN.01000601.xml










13.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 180/6





REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS
2014/C 180 A/02
Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.






5


 




6


 




11


 




19


 




21


 




26


 




27


 




30


(PL)




35


 




41


(DE/EN/FR)




42


 




43


 




46


 




47


 




48


 




55


 




56


 




60


 




62


 




65


 




73


(DE/EN/FR)




74


 




81


 




88


 




92


(DE/EN/FR)




97


 




98


 




99


 




108


 




109


 




116


 




119


 




133


 




134


 




136


 




137


(DE/EN/FR)




140


 




145


 




152


 




160


 




163


 




164


 




176


 




178


 




180
Case C-293/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 June 2014  — Gerhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, economic activity, environmental risk prevention, provision of services








C_2014303EN.01002101.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 June 2014 — Gerhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer
(Case C-293/14)
2014/C 303/27
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gerhart Hiebler

Defendant: Walter Schlagbauer

Questions referred







1.


In accordance with Article 2(2)(i) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, (1) is the entire commercial activity of a chimney sweep excluded from the scope of that directive because chimney sweeps also perform tasks in the field of fire safety regulation (fire safety inspections, expert reports in the course of building approval procedures etc.)?
If Question 1 is answered in the negative:










2.


Is a scheme, provided for in national law, under which the licence to trade as a chimney sweep is limited to a particular ‘Kehrgebiet’ (sweeping area) compatible with Article 10(4) and Article 15(1), (2)(a) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.
2014/363/EU: Commission Decision of 13 June 2014 amending Decision 2007/742/EC on electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps (notified under document C(2014) 3838)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, eco-label, heat pump, heating, technical specification








L_2014177EN.01006001.xml










17.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 177/60








            COMMISSION DECISION
         
of 13 June 2014
         
amending Decision 2007/742/EC on electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps


(notified under document C(2014) 3838)


(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/363/EU)



THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular point (c) of Article 8(3) thereof,


After consulting the European Union Eco-Labelling Board,

Whereas:







(1)


Air/brine/water-to-water heat pumps that provide heat to a water-based central heating system are in scope of Commission Decision 2014/314/EU of 28 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for water-based heaters (2).












(2)


Commission Decision 2007/742/EC of 9 November 2007 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps (3) expires on 31 October 2014.












(3)


An assessment has been carried out to evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of the current ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by this Decision. Given the different stages of the revision process for this Decision, it is appropriate to prolong the period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements which it sets out. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decision 2007/742/EC should be prolonged until 31 December 2016.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010.












(5)


Decision 2007/742/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2007/742/EC is amended as follows:






1.


In the third paragraph of Article 1, the following point (c) is added:






‘(c)


heat pumps which provide heat to a water based central heating system’














2.


In Article 4, ‘31 October 2014’ is replaced by ‘31 December 2016’






Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 13 June 2014.


For the Commission

Janez POTOČNIK
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 164, 3.6.2014, p. 83.

(3)  
            OJ L 301, 20.11.2007, p. 14.
Case C-292/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) (Greece) lodged on 13 June 2014  — The Greek State v Stefanos Stroumboulis and Others
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: crew, financial solvency, pay, ship's flag, third country








C_2014282EN.01002401.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) (Greece) lodged on 13 June 2014 — The Greek State v Stefanos Stroumboulis and Others
(Case C-292/14)
2014/C 282/30
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: The Greek State

Defendants: Stefanos Stroumpoulis, Nicolaos Koumpanos, Panagiotis Renieris, Charalampos Renieris, Ioannis Zacharias, Dimitrios Lazarou and Apostolos Chatzisotiriou

Questions referred







1)


Are the provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that seamen of a Member State who provided maritime labour on a vessel flying the flag of a country which is not a member of the European Union, as regards their outstanding claims against the ship-owning company — which had its registered office in the territory of the non-member country though its real seat was in the Member State concerned, and which was declared insolvent by a court of that Member State according to the law of that Member State, for the precise reason that that was where its real seat was — were subject to the protective provisions of the above Directive, in view of the purpose of the Directive and irrespective of the fact that the relevant employment contracts were governed by the law of the non-member country and that the Member State is unable to claim a contribution from the ship-owning company, which is not subject to the domestic legal order, towards the financing of the guarantee institution?










2)


Are the provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that ‘equivalent protection’ includes payment, pursuant to Article 29 of Law 1220/1981, by the Seamen’s Insurance Fund (NAT) of wages for up to three months, according to the rate of basic pay and benefits set out in the relevant collective bargaining agreements for Greek seamen employed as such on board vessels flying the Greek flag or foreign vessels which have entered into an agreement with NAT, in the circumstances referred to in that article, i.e. only if they are abandoned in a foreign country?






(1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 35).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7203 — Unibail-Rodamco/CPPIB/CentrO)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, shopping centre, trade event








C_2014180EN.01000202.xml










13.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7203 — Unibail-Rodamco/CPPIB/CentrO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 180/03)
On 6 May 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language 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 32014M7203. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-296/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition








C_2014253EN.01002201.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/22





Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission

(Case C-296/14 P)
2014/C 253/29
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι. Chalkias and Α. Vasilopoulou)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union, for the reasons more specifically set out, uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic, annul the contested decision of the European Commission and order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the ground of appeal on which it relies, the Hellenic Republic maintains that EU law has been infringed because the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) and (3)(b) TFEU with regard to the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time at issue.
More specifically, by the first part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that by reason of a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU the General Court of the European Union held that the measures at issue constituted a selective economic advantage for the beneficiaries which was sufficient to threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States given the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time, while by the second part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU because it restricted the regulatory scope of that provision to the terms of the Communication on the TCF [Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures] notwithstanding the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7245 — Katara Hospitality/InterContinental Hotels Group/Danube Holding)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Qatar, Spain, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2014180EN.01000201.xml










13.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7245 — Katara Hospitality/InterContinental Hotels Group/Danube Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 180/02)
On 5 June 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language 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 32014M7245. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-352/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014  — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark FLEXI — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01001001.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/10





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI)
(Case T-352/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark FLEXI - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 245/13
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV (León, Mexico) (represented by: M. Zarobe, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2012 (Case R 1335/2011-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign FLEXI as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7265 — Zimmer/Biomet)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control








C_2014180EN.01002401.xml










13.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7265 — Zimmer/Biomet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 180/12)






1.


On 3 June 2014, 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 Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (‘Zimmer’, United States of America) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Biomet, Inc. (‘Biomet’, United States of America) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Zimmer is active in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of orthopaedic reconstructive, spinal and trauma devices, biologics, dental implants and related surgical products,










—


Biomet is also active in orthopaedic and other medical devices and related products.














3.


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










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 M.7265 — Zimmer/Biomet, 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 “Merger Regulation”).
Case T-85/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014  — K-Swiss v OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01001302.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/13





Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — K-Swiss v OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (parallel stripes on a shoe)
(Case T-85/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)))
2014/C 245/18
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: K-Swiss, Inc. (Westlake, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and K. Tasma, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Künzli SwissSchuh AG (Windisch, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 174/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Künzli SwissSchuh AG and K-Swiss, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders K-Swiss, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
Case T-433/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014  — Superficies de Alimentación v Commission
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01005802.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/58





Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Superficies de Alimentación v Commission
(Case T-433/14)
2014/C 253/79
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Superficies de Alimentación, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.
Case T-432/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014  — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, shipbuilding, tax system








C_2014253EN.01005801.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/58





Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission
(Case T-432/14)
2014/C 253/78
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain); and Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the benefits that, according to the contested decision, the applicant companies received as members of various Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs); and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following factual considerations:






1.


The ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) constitutes an integrated whole, in which the various measures that make up that system — in themselves lawful or unlawful according to the Commission’s criteria — are essential to achieving the conclusion of naval construction contracts with Spanish shipyards.










2.


Although the direct benefits characterised as unlawful by the Commission were granted to the participating EIGs, the entire system was conceived of and implemented so as to ensure that those benefits would be passed on to all the participants in the system: shipyards, EIGs, ship owners, organising banks and intermediary companies for various transactions.










3.


The Commission, in its decision, ordered the State to recover the aid unlawfully granted, but only from the EIGs, thus excluding the other participants in the system from the burden of recovery.










4.


The Commission failed to state reasons for its decision to exercise the option of recovery, or to explain why the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs.










5.


The decision that the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs was made for reasons different from those justifying the granting to the Commission of the power to order such recovery.