do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-314/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 July 2014  — Sanoma Media Finland Oy/Nelonen Media, Helsinki
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, audiovisual production, broadcasting, child protection, regulation of telecommunications








C_2014292EN.01002101.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 July 2014 — Sanoma Media Finland Oy/Nelonen Media, Helsinki
(Case C-314/14)
2014/C 292/25
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sanoma Media Finland Oy/Nelonen Media, Helsinki

Other party: Viestintävirasto

Questions referred







1.


In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is Article 19(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legal provisions to the effect that screen splitting is not regarded as a break bumper that keeps the audiovisual programme distinct from television advertising, where one part of the screen is reserved for the programme’s closing credits and the other part to a schedule menu presenting the upcoming programmes on a broadcaster’s channel and no acoustic or optical device expressly announcing the start of an advertising break is broadcast either in the split screen or thereafter?










2.


Taking into account the fact that Directive 2010/13 is in the nature of a minimum standard, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is Article 23(2) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning that it is not compatible with that provision to classify sponsor idents broadcast in connection with programmes other than the sponsored programmes as ‘advertising spots’ within the meaning of Article 23(1) of the Directive which must be included in the maximum permissible advertising time?










3.


Taking into account the fact that Directive 2010/13 is in the nature of a minimum standard, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is the term ‘advertising spots’ in Article 23(1) of that directive in conjunction with the description of the maximum permissible advertising time (‘the proportion ... within a given clock hour shall not exceed 20 %’) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not compatible with that provision to count the ‘black seconds’ between individual advertising spots and at the end of an advertising break as advertising time?






(1)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).
Case C-313/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 1 July 2014  — ASPROD sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Szczecinie
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, tax exemption, tax harmonisation








C_2015081EN.01000202.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 1 July 2014 — ASPROD sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Szczecinie
(Case C-313/14)
(2015/C 081/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ASPROD sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Szczecinie
By order of 3 December 2014, the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) ruled that Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1) must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which make the application of the exemption from the harmonised excise duty provided for under that provision subject to the condition that the trader concerned must hold a decision from the tax administration fixing the maximum limits for use of the products exempted under that provision.


(1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.
Special Report No 11/2014 — ‘The establishment of the European External Action Service’
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU relations, European External Action Service, operation of the Institutions








C_2014203EN.01000401.xml










1.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/4





Special Report No 11/2014
‘The establishment of the European External Action Service’
2014/C 203/04
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 11/2014 ‘The establishment of the European External Action Service’ 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




Publications (PUB)




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.
Case C-311/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, health care, medical plant, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015073EN.01000901.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/9






Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-311/14 P)
(2015/C 073/12)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Weleda Trademark AG
By order of 20 January 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7120 — Ecom Agroindustrial Corporation / Armajaro Trading)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, export, merger control, primary product








C_2014203EN.01000201.xml










1.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7120 — Ecom Agroindustrial Corporation / Armajaro Trading)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 203/02
On 23 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 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7120. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7257 — Carlyle / PAI / CST)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical equipment, electronic component, investment company, merger control








C_2014203EN.01000101.xml










1.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7257 — Carlyle / PAI / CST)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 203/01
On 19 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7257. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-239/12: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014  — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ZIECON — Earlier Community word mark CERCON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, ceramics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014282EN.01002801.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/28





Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014 — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON)
(Case T-239/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ZIECON - Earlier Community word mark CERCON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
2014/C 282/36
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd (Nashik, India) (represented by: R. Egerer, D. Jochim and A. Kolb, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau, Germany) (represented by: W. Blau, T. Hertl and P. Winkler, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2012 (Case R 2546/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between DeguDent GmbH and Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and DeguDent GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
Case T-480/13: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014  — You-View.tv v OHIM — YouView TV (YouView+) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark YouView+ — Earlier Benelux figurative trade mark You View You-View.tv — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Concept of a ‘provision to the contrary’  — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014282EN.01003602.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/36





Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014 — You-View.tv v OHIM — YouView TV (YouView+)
(Case T-480/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark YouView+ - Earlier Benelux figurative trade mark You View You-View.tv - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Concept of a ‘provision to the contrary’ - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
2014/C 282/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: You-View.tv (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: S. Criel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: YouView TV Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.










2)


Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim.










3)


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 334, 23.11.2013.
Case T-505/14: Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014292EN.01005401.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/54





Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)
(Case T-505/14)
2014/C 292/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Seven for all mankind LLC (Vernon, United States) (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

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 9 April 2014 given in Case R 1277/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18 — Community trade mark application No 4 4 43  222

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative Community trademarks containing the verbal element ‘Seven’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7253 — Lagardère Services/SNCF Participations/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, press, rail transport, retail selling, transport company, transport infrastructure








C_2014203EN.01000501.xml










1.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7253 — Lagardère Services/SNCF Participations/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 203/05






1.


On 19 June 2014, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Lagardère Services (‘Lagardère Services’, France), controlled by the Lagardère Group (‘Lagardère’, France), and the undertaking SNCF Participations (‘SNCF-P’, France), controlled by the SNCF Group (France), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a joint venture (hereinafter the ‘joint venture’) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Lagardère Services: retail sales in airports, train and metro stations, press distribution and local stores,
—   Lagardère: books, press, TV broadcasting and multimedia services,
—   SNCF-P: direct or indirect control of most of its subsidiaries and holdings in each of the SNCF’s business units, in particular the ‘Gares & Connexions’ unit (station management).










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 to it their observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date on which this notification is published. They can be sent to the Commission under reference number M.7253 — Lagardère Services/SNCF Participations/JV by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post 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 C-312/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 July 2014  — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital market, financial institution, financial instrument, foreign currency, investment, loan








C_2014303EN.01002701.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 July 2014 — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos
(Case C-312/14)
2014/C 303/34
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Ráckevei Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

Defendants: Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos

Questions referred







1.


Must it be held that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(2) (investment services and activities), Article 4(1)(17) (financial instruments) and Annex I, Section C, point (4) (forward currency contracts, derivative instruments) of Directive [2004/39/EC] (1) (‘the directive’), the offer of an (exchange rate) transaction to a client which, under the legal form of a foreign currency denominated loan agreement, consists of a spot transaction at the time of the advance of the loan and a forward transaction at the time of repayment, which is carried out by converting into forints a registered amount of foreign currency and which exposes the client’s loan to the effects and risks (currency risk) of capital markets, constitutes a financial instrument?










2.


Must it be held that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(6) (dealing on own account) and Annex I, Section A, point (3) (dealing on own account) of the directive, the carrying out of proprietary trading in respect of the financial instrument described in the first question constitutes an investment service or activity?










3.


Must the financial institution perform the suitability check required by Article 19(4) and (5) of the directive, taking into account that the forward currency contract — which is an investment service relating to financial derivative instruments — was offered as part of another financial product (namely a loan agreement) and that the derivative instrument in itself constitutes a complex financial instrument? Must it be held that Article 19(9) of the directive is not applicable because, as the risks assumed by the client with regard to the loan and to the financial instrument are fundamentally different, the suitability assessment is essential inasmuch as the transaction contains a derivative instrument?










4.


Does the circumvention of Article 19(4) and (5) of the directive lead to the annulment of the loan agreement between the bank and the client?






(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014203EN.01000301.xml










1.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 June 2014
2014/C 203/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3658




JPY


Japanese yen


138,44




DKK


Danish krone


7,4557




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80150




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1762




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2156




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4035




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,453




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,30




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1568




RON


Romanian leu


4,3830




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8969




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4537




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4589




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5858




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5626




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7047




KRW


South Korean won


1 382,04




ZAR


South African rand


14,4597




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4722




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5760




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 248,15




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3856




PHP


Philippine peso


59,652




RUB


Russian rouble


46,3779




THB


Thai baht


44,323




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0002




MXN


Mexican peso


17,7124




INR


Indian rupee


82,2023






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.