do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
State aid — Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, environmental protection, renewable energy








C_2014250EN.01001501.xml










1.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/15





STATE AID — GERMANY
State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users
Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 250/08
On 9 April 2014, the Commission adopted the EU Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (1). These guidelines enter into force on 1 July 2014. According to point 248 of these guidelines the Commission will assess the compatibility of any possible unlawful aid in the form of reductions in funding support for energy from renewable sources in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 of the same guidelines.
In the light of the entry into force of the EU Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, Member States and interested parties may submit their comments on the measures in respect of which the Commission has initiated the above mentioned pending formal investigation within 20 working days from the date of publication of this notice to:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




State aid Greffe




Office: Madou 12/59




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu




Interested parties comments will be communicated to the Member State concerned. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing when submitting the comments, stating the reasons for the request. In that case a non-confidential version of the submission should be submitted together with the confidential submission.


(1)  OJ C 200, 28.6.2014, p. 1.
Case T-81/14: Order of the General Court of 1 August 2014  — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014361EN.01000901.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/9





Order of the General Court of 1 August 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER)
(Case T-81/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
2014/C 361/10
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Energy Brands, Inc. (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and R. Allos, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Smart Wines GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Schwarz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2013 (case R 903/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands, Inc. and Smart Wines GmbH.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant, the defendant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7317 — Mercuria/JP Morgan Chase & Co. Commodities Trading Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, energy storage, merger control








C_2014250EN.01001601.xml










1.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7317 — Mercuria/JP Morgan Chase & Co. Commodities Trading Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 250/09






1.


On 24 July 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 Mercuria Energy Group Limited (‘Mercuria’ of Cyprus) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the physical Commodities trading Business of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (‘JP Morgan Commodities’ of USA) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The Business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Mercuria is active in the trading of energy products, including crude oil and refined petroleum products, natural gas (including LNG), power, coal, biodiesel, vegetable oils and carbon emissions. Mercuria also provides storage facilities for petroleum products;










—


JP Morgan Commodities comprises JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s activities in the physical trading of crude oil and petroleum products, natural gas, thermal coal, power, emission rights and various base metals. It also provides warehousing services with respect to exchange-traded base metals.














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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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.7317 — Mercuria/JP Morgan Chase & Co. Commodities Trading Business, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-574/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014 — EAEPC v Commission
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: dominant position, fixing of prices, infringement of EU law, pharmaceutical product, selling price








C_2014409EN.01004701.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/47





Action brought on 1 August 2014 — EAEPC v Commission
(Case T-574/14)
2014/C 409/67
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, L. Ortiz Blanco, Á. Givaja Sanz and M. Araujo Boyd, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment admissible;










—


annul the European Commission’s decision of 27 May 2014 in Case No COMP/AT.36957 Glaxo Wellcome;










—


order the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as those which the EAEPC may incur in connection with these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 3654 final of 27 May 2014 in Case COMP/AT.36957 — Glaxo Wellcome, whereby the Commission rejects the applicant’s complaint thereby refusing a further investigation into the alleged infringement by Glaxo Wellcome SA, now GlaxoSmithKline SA, of Article 101 TFEU in the light of the judgments of 27 September 2006, GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (T-168/01, ECR, EU:T:2006:265) and of 6 October 2009, GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P, ECR, EU:C:2009:610).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in breach of Articles 101, 105 and 266 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in holding that the effect of the judgment GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (EU:C:2009:610) is that the initial decision of 2001 was considered null and void and that the situation was to be regarded as if the Commission had never adopted the 2001 Decision. The applicant further alleges that the Commission infringed its duty to give sufficient reasons and its obligation to hear the applicant on this issue before adopting a definitive decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU or that the Commission failed to comply with its duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU when assessing the existence of an EU interest in the case. The applicant further submits that the Commission has infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that all matters of fact and law are not analysed in the contested decision.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014250EN.01000201.xml










1.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

31 July 2014
2014/C 250/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3379




JPY


Japanese yen


137,66




DKK


Danish krone


7,4564




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79280




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2261




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2169




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4050




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,570




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,96




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1691




RON


Romanian leu


4,4281




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8551




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4396




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4610




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,3689




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5761




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6681




KRW


South Korean won


1 378,50




ZAR


South African rand


14,2861




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2621




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6360




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 490,58




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2769




PHP


Philippine peso


58,211




RUB


Russian rouble


47,5220




THB


Thai baht


42,959




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0156




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6355




INR


Indian rupee


81,0170






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7134 — Volvo Construction Equipment / Terex Equipment)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, construction equipment, economic concentration, merger control, vehicle parts








C_2014250EN.01000101.xml










1.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7134 — Volvo Construction Equipment / Terex Equipment)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 250/01
On 24 April 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 32014M7134. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-567/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014  — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tourism, trade-mark law








C_2014372EN.01001801.xml










20.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/18





Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)
(Case T-567/14)
2014/C 372/23
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Group OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Dragia Dragiev and Andrey Andreev, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kosta Iliev (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Zlatarevi Patent and Trade Mark Bureau)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision R 1587/2013-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 on the basis of Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;










—


order OHIM and, in the case of its intervention in the proceedings before the Court, the party concerned to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kosta Iliev.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark with the word elements ‘GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL’ for goods and services in classes 35, 39 and 43.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Group OOD.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: unregistered trade mark comprising substantive rights over a sign with the word elements ‘Group company’.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as unfounded.

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the content of the Bulgarian law was incorrectly examined of the Board’s own motion);










—


Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (there was no comprehensive and correct evaluation of the evidence submitted);










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the evidence submitted and legal arguments were not examined in relation to the conditions laid down in that provision).
Case C-371/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2014  — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), manufactured goods, originating product








C_2014372EN.01000302.xml










20.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2014 — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
(Case C-371/14)
2014/C 372/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Questions referred







1.


Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 (1) of 18 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not (OJ 2013 L 82 of 22.3.2013, pp. 10-17; ‘Regulation No 260/2013’) invalid because the anti-dumping duty introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007, and which was to be extended, was no longer in force at the time when Regulation No 260/2013 was adopted?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:










2.


Is Regulation No 260/2013 invalid because there is no evidence of circumvention, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation No [1225/2009], of the measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 (2)?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 82, p. 10.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 of 10 December 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China and consigned from or originating in Taiwan and on imports of certain refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China and consigned from or originating in Taiwan (OJ 2007 L 326, p. 1).
Case T-579/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014  — Birkenstock Sales v OHIM (representation of a surface pattern)
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01002001.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/20





Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Birkenstock Sales v OHIM (representation of a surface pattern)
(Case T-579/14)
2014/C 351/25
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Vettelschoß, Germany) (represented by C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

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 15 May 2014 in Case R 1952/2013-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the international registration of the figurative mark representing a surface patter for goods in Classes 10, 18 and 25 — International registration No 1 1 32742

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.