do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-13/14)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, equal treatment, gender equality, national implementing measure, provision of services








C_2014334EN.01003201.xml










25.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 334/32





Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-13/14)
(2014/C 334/13)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by Joint Committee Decision No 147/2009 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:






—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services) (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Case C-435/13 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Qwatchme A/S (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Articles 4 to 6, 25(1)(b) and (f), and 52 — Registered Community design representing watch dials — Earlier Community design — Invalidity proceedings)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, designs and models, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014409EN.01002302.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/23





Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Qwatchme A/S
(Case C-435/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Articles 4 to 6, 25(1)(b) and (f), and 52 - Registered Community design representing watch dials - Earlier Community design - Invalidity proceedings))
2014/C 409/33
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Erich Kastenholz (represented by: L. Acker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent), Qwatchme A/S (represented by: M. Zöbisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Kastenholz shall bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
Case C-345/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 July 2014  — SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’ v Konkurences padome
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: business lease, restriction on competition, retail trade








C_2014329EN.01000401.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 July 2014 — SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’ v Konkurences padome
(Case C-345/14)
2014/C 329/06
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Questions referred







1.


Can the agreement under consideration in the present case, concluded by a lessor of commercial premises and a retailer (the ‘anchor tenant’), which restricts the lessor’s right to decide individually, without the consent of the anchor tenant, to make other lettings of commercial premises to potential competitors of the ‘anchor tenant’, be regarded as an agreement between undertakings whose object is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, for the purposes of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?










2.


When the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed, must an analysis be made of the structure of the market, and if so, for what purpose?










3.


Is the market power of the parties to the agreement under consideration in the present case, and its possible growth, a factor that must necessarily be taken into account when the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed?










4.


If, in order to discover the nature of the agreement and to ascertain that the elements of a prohibited agreement are present, it is necessary to determine whether the agreement could possibly affect the market, can such potential effects on the market at the same time form a sufficient basis for finding that the agreement corresponds to the definition of a prohibited agreement, without any need for it to be determined whether that agreement actually produced any adverse effects?
Case T-721/13: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2014-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2014339EN.01001902.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/19





Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
(Case T-721/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))
2014/C 339/23
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Bolloré (Ergué Gabéric, France) (represented by: S. Legrand, lawyer)
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2013 (Case R 1961/2912-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between Bolloré and The Directv Group, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant shall bear its costs, including those incurred by the defendant and the other party to the proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.