do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-362/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 25 July 2014 — Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United States, data protection, personal data








C_2014351EN.01000501.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 25 July 2014 — Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner
(Case C-362/14)
2014/C 351/06
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maximillian Schrems

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Questions referred







1.


Whether in the course of determining a complaint which has been made to an independent office holder who has been vested by statute with the functions of administering and enforcing data protection legislation that personal data is being transferred to another third country (in this case, the United States of America) the laws and practices of which, it is claimed, do not contain adequate protections for the data subject, that office holder is absolutely bound by the Community finding to the contrary contained in Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 (2000/520/EC (1)) having regard to Article 7, Article 8 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01 (2)), the provisions of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC (3) notwithstanding?










2.


Or, alternatively, may and/or must the office holder conduct his or her own investigation of the matter in the light of factual developments in the meantime since that Commission Decision was first published?






(1)  Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441)

OJ L 215, p. 7


(2)  Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union

OJ C 364, p. 1


(3)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

OJ L 281, p. 31
Case F-74/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, legality








C_2014388EN.01003001.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/30





Action brought on 25 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-74/14)
2014/C 388/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Declaration of the unlawfulness of Article 7 of Annex V and Article 8 of Annex VII to the new Staff Regulations of Officials and of the annulment of the decision withdrawing from the applicant the benefit of travelling time and reimbursement of travel costs between her place of employment and her place of origin to which she was entitled before the entry into force of that new provision of the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought







—


Declare Articles 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations unlawful;










—


Annul the decision no longer to grant the applicant any travelling time or the reimbursement of annual travel costs with effect from 2014;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative competition, job vacancy








CA2014242EN.01000801.xml










25.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 242/8





REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS
2014/C 242 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


 




182


 




185


 




186


 




188


 




195


 




207


 




209


(DE/EN/FR)




211


 




217


 




219


 




242
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics, merger control, retail trade, telecommunications








C_2014242EN.01000101.xml










25.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 242/01
On 25 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 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7259. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-549/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01001501.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/15





Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)
(Case T-549/14)
2014/C 351/17
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Castello’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 6 819 973

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: Numerous earlier Community and national trade marks containing, inter alia, the verbal element ‘Castelló’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially upheld the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014242EN.01000401.xml










25.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 July 2014
2014/C 242/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3472




JPY


Japanese yen


136,97




DKK


Danish krone


7,4573




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79215




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2102




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2152




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3610




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,480




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,76




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1408




RON


Romanian leu


4,4068




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8194




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4272




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4449




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4412




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5679




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6688




KRW


South Korean won


1 385,96




ZAR


South African rand


14,1380




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3464




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6250




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 585,25




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2827




PHP


Philippine peso


58,349




RUB


Russian rouble


47,1080




THB


Thai baht


42,891




BRL


Brazilian real


2,9884




MXN


Mexican peso


17,4368




INR


Indian rupee


81,0071






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7293 — Allergopharma/Stallergenes/Laboratorios LETI/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Portugal, Spain, allergy, economic concentration, health care, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2014242EN.01000102.xml










25.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7293 — Allergopharma/Stallergenes/Laboratorios LETI/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 242/02
On 18 July 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 32014M7293. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-554/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014  — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — J.M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fundamental rights, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014339EN.01002401.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/24





Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — J.M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)
(Case T-554/14)
2014/C 339/29
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2014 in Case R 1553/2013-1, in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding Opposition No B 1 9 38  458 and rejecting in part Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81  154‘MESSI’ (figurative);










—


order the party or parties opposing the action to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘MESSI’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81  154

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: Community word marks ‘MASSI’ for goods in classes 9, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Corrigendum to Decision No 2 of the Joint Committee of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin of 21 May 2014 as regards the request of the Republic of Moldova to become a Contracting Party to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin ( OJ L 217, 23.7.2014 )
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: Joint Committee
Subjects: Moldova, accession to an agreement, administrative cooperation, agreement (EU), generalised preferences, originating product, regional cooperation, trading operation








L_2014219EN.01006501.xml










25.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 219/65







Corrigendum to Decision No 2 of the Joint Committee of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin of 21 May 2014 as regards the request of the Republic of Moldova to become a Contracting Party to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 217 of 23 July 2014
)


On page 88, footnote 2:
for:

               ‘(2)’,
read:

               ‘(*)’.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1040/2014 of 25 July 2014 amending Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption to adapt its Annex I to technical progress
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: food additive, fruit juice, market approval, vegetable protein








L_2014288EN.01000101.xml










2.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 288/1








            COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 1040/2014
of 25 July 2014
         
amending Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption to adapt its Annex I to technical progress


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Directive 2001/112/EC empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend the Annexes to that Directive, with the exception of Part I of Annex I, and of Annex II, in order to bring them into line with developments in relevant international standards and in order to take into account technical progress.












(2)


Annex I to Directive 2001/112/EC relates to product names, definitions of products and characteristics. Point 3 of Part II of that Annex regulates the authorised treatments and substances. Due to the technical developments new substances for clarification of juices are now available. Those substances are plant proteins derived from either wheat, peas or potatoes, which can be an alternative to the currently authorized substance gelatine, derived from animal products.












(3)


In order to take into account this technical progress, point 3 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/112/EC should be amended by incorporating those new substances,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In point 3 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/112/EC, the following indent is added:






‘—


Plant proteins from wheat, peas or potatoes for clarification’



.

Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 July 2014.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 10, 12.1.2002, p. 58.
Action brought on 25 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein (Case E-17/14)
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, dentist, infringement of EU law, professional qualifications, public health, right of establishment








C_2014334EN.01003501.xml










25.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 334/35





Action brought on 25 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
(Case E-17/14)
(2014/C 334/16)
An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 25 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, 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 maintaining in force national rules such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of the Health Act, including the applicability of Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Health Act in those respects, which require that an authorised ‘Dentist’ has to pursue his profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of these proceedings.





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






—


Article 63 of the Liechtenstein Health Act provides that a ‘Dentist’ can only work under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (Zahnarzt).










—


The right of establishment guaranteed under Article 31 EEA requires there to be no restrictions on the freedom of establishment, including the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 EEA. In its view, Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provisions in the Act on the repeal of the Health Act, including the applicability of Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Health Act in those respects, amounts to a restriction under Article 31 EEA.










—


The Liechtenstein government argues that the objective of Article 63 of the Health Act is to secure the protection of public health.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority holds that it goes beyond what is necessary to attain the protection of public health that a fully trained and qualified ‘Dentist’, wishing to pursue his professional activity in accordance with his obtained diploma, has to be employed by a dental practitioner in Liechtenstein.
Case T-561/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — One of Us and Others v Parlement and Others
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU initiative, EU national, admissibility, embryo and foetus, legislative initiative, participatory democracy, petition








C_2014409EN.01004501.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/45





Action brought on 25 July 2014 — One of Us and Others v Parlement and Others
(Case T-561/14)
2014/C 409/65
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and Others (represented by: C. de La Hougue, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Communication COM (2014) 355 final;










—


in the alternative, annul of Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011;










—


order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs of this procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reply to the applicants’ legislative proposal and to the issues raised by the applicants in the citizens’ initiative ‘One of us’ is unsatisfactory as the Commission i) does not respond to the fact that the human embryo is a human being and ii) does not address obvious contradictions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of the democratic process as the Commission:






—


does not provide legal reasons for its refusal to transmit the applicants’ proposal to the Parliament;










—


misunderstands the requirements of Regulation No 211/2011 (1) and maintains a monopoly of the legislative process contrary to the provisions of the Treaties on the institutional dialogue;










—


does not set out its legal and political conclusions separately as required by Regulation No 211/2011.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging non-conformity of Regulation No 211/2011 with the Treaties. The applicants allege that:






—


the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty to improve the institutions’ democratic legitimacy and to encourage the participation of European citizens in the democratic process are countered if a citizens’ initiative can be dismissed by the Commission for subjective or arbitrary reasons without being examined by the Parliament;










—


the rule of law is infringed if the Commission’s decision is not subject to legal review.










(1)  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Council Decision 2014/415/EU of 24 June 2014 on the arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause ( OJ L 192, 1.7.2014 )
Date: 2014-07-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: aid to disaster victims, application of EU law, civil defence, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), man-made disaster, mutual assistance, natural disaster, terrorism








L_2014221EN.01002601.xml










25.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 221/26







Corrigendum to Council Decision 2014/415/EU of 24 June 2014 on the arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 192 of 1 July 2014
)


On the cover, in the table of contents:
for:


                  ‘2014/415/EU

Council Decision of 24 June 2014 on the arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause’,


read:



                     ‘Council Decision 2014/415/CFSP of 24 June 2014 on the arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause’;


on page 53, in the title:
for:



                           ‘COUNCIL DECISION


of 24 June 2014
                        


on the arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause

(2014/415/EU)’,

read:



                           ‘COUNCIL DECISION 2014/415/CFSP


of 24 June 2014
                        


on the arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause’.