do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-108/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt (Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Plant protection products — Marketing authorisation — Parallel import — Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of goods, import licence, market approval, plant health product, quantitative restriction








C_2015007EN.01000501.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt
(Case C-108/13) (1)

((Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Plant protection products - Marketing authorisation - Parallel import - Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State))
(2015/C 007/06)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mac GmbH

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import authorisation may not be granted for a plant protection product which does not have, in the exporting Member State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, even though that product has a parallel import authorisation and may be regarded as identical to a product covered by a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with that directive in the importing Member State.


(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case C-366/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság — Hungary) — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár kft (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, admissibility, contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2015016EN.01001501.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/15






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság — Hungary) — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár kft
(Case C-366/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility - Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling)
(2015/C 016/22)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Herrenknecht AG

Defendant: Hév-Sugár kft

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 11 July 2014 (Case C-366/14), is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case C-493/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2014  — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, energy saving, environmental protection, tax rebate








C_2015046EN.01002101.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2014 — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH
(Case C-493/14)
(2015/C 046/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Respondent authority: Finanzamt Linz

Questions referred







1.


Is EU law infringed if an aid scheme makes use of the special procedure under Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (‘GBER’) (1) in accordance with Article 25 in order to be exempt from the obligation to notify under Article 108(3) TFEU, but does not comply with various obligations of Chapter I of the GBER and, moreover, does not make any reference to the GBER?










2.


Is EU law infringed if an aid scheme is based on the special procedure of the GBER which is applicable to environmental aid in accordance with Article 25 but the requirements laid down in Chapter II — namely the promotion of environmental protection measures and energy-saving measures under Article 17(1) GBER — are not satisfied?










3.


Does EU law preclude national rules which contain no temporal restriction and also no reference to the period stated in the exemption notice, with the result that the limitation of the energy tax refund to 10 years, required in Article 25(3) GBER, is to be inferred only from the exemption notice?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation), OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3.
Case C-546/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8471 and 8518 — Loudspeakers reproducing sound by transforming an electromagnetic signal into sound waves, which can be connected only to a computer and marketed separately)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, electronic device








C_2015007EN.01001001.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/10





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl
(Case C-546/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8471 and 8518 - Loudspeakers reproducing sound by transforming an electromagnetic signal into sound waves, which can be connected only to a computer and marketed separately))
(2015/C 007/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane

Defendant: ADL American Dataline Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are connected to a computer equipped with the operating system ‘MAC OS 9’ or a more advanced system, must be classified as loudspeakers in subheading 8518 22 90 of that nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative competition, job vacancy








CA2014391EN.01000901.xml










6.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 391/9





REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS
2014/C 391 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


 




254


 




255


 




256


(LV)




258


(RO)




262


(EN)




267


(SL)




270


(FR)




272


(DA)




274


(IT)




277


 




283


 




289


(DE/EN/FR)




293


(NL)




295


(MT)




297


 




299


 




304


 




321


(DE/EN/FR)




325


(SL)




332


 




334


 




340


 




342


(EN)




352


 




354


 




358


 




366


 




376


 




378


(SV)




381


 




384


 




385


(PT)




390


(HR)




391
Case T-632/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014  — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment entitlements scheme — Loyal cooperation — Fairness — Proportionality — National reserve — Award criteria — Flat-rate financial correction — Risk for the Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 — Wine sector — Distillation schemes and schemes for payments for the use of certain musts — Aid for restructuring and for the conversion of vineyards)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF, Greece, aid for restructuring, distillation, expenditure, principle of proportionality, single payment scheme, wine








C_2014448EN.01001702.xml










15.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 448/17





Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-632/11) (1)

((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment entitlements scheme - Loyal cooperation - Fairness - Proportionality - National reserve - Award criteria - Flat-rate financial correction - Risk for the Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Wine sector - Distillation schemes and schemes for payments for the use of certain musts - Aid for restructuring and for the conversion of vineyards))
(2014/C 448/22)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Marcoulli, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 270, p. 33), in so far as that decision concerns the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the grant of entitlements from the national reserve to new farmers;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Declares that the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic are to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
Case T-53/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014  — Vans v OHIM (Representation of a wavy line) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark representing a wavy line — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014462EN.01002301.xml










22.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/23





Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Vans v OHIM (Representation of a wavy line)
(Case T-53/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark representing a wavy line - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2014/C 462/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 860/2012-5), concerning the application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a wavy line.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Case T-463/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014  — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark MB — Earlier Community figurative mark MB&P — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lawyer, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014448EN.01002001.xml










15.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 448/20





Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)
(Case T-463/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark MB - Earlier Community figurative mark MB&P - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2014/C 448/25)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany) and Stefan M. Zech (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Jacob initially, then M. Jacob and F. Thiering)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte (Munich) (represented by: T. Koerl and E. Celenk initially, then K. Kern and B. Maneth, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 506/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte, on the one hand, and Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
Case C-490/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2014  — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: copyright, data collection, data protection, database








C_2015034EN.01000601.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2014 — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH
(Case C-490/14)
(2015/C 034/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant: Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

Question referred

In relation to the question whether a collection of independent materials exists within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC (1) because the materials can be separated from one another without the value of their informative content being affected, is every conceivable informative value decisive or only the value which is to be determined on the basis of the purpose of the collection and having regard to the resulting typical conduct of users?


(1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.
Case C-42/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA (Public procurement — Principles of equal treatment and transparency — Directive 2004/18/EC — Grounds for excluding a tenderer from participating — Article 45 — The personal situation of the candidate or tenderer — Compulsory statement concerning the person designated as ‘technical director’  — Statement not included with the tender — Exclusion from the contract without any possibility of remedying that omission)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative contract, administrative transparency, award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender








C_2015007EN.01000302.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/3





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA
(Case C-42/13) (1)

((Public procurement - Principles of equal treatment and transparency - Directive 2004/18/EC - Grounds for excluding a tenderer from participating - Article 45 - The personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Compulsory statement concerning the person designated as ‘technical director’ - Statement not included with the tender - Exclusion from the contract without any possibility of remedying that omission))
(2015/C 007/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cartiera dell’Adda SpA

Defendant: CEM Ambiente SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the directive, and the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as not precluding the exclusion of an economic operator from a procurement procedure on the ground that the operator has failed to comply with the requirement laid down in the contract documentation to annex to his bid, on pain of exclusion, a statement to the effect that the person designated in the bid as the operator’s technical director has not been the subject of criminal proceedings or a conviction, even where, at a date after the expiry of the deadline for submitting bids, such a statement has been provided to the contracting authority or it is shown that the person in question was identified as the technical director in error.


(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Case C-243/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (application brought by Philippe Adam Krikorian — France) — Grégoire Krikorian and Others (Article 267 TFEU — Direct application by the parties — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, racism, xenophobia








C_2015081EN.01000201.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/2





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (application brought by Philippe Adam Krikorian — France) — Grégoire Krikorian and Others

(Case C-243/14) (1)

((Article 267 TFEU - Direct application by the parties - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
(2015/C 081/02)
Language of the case: French
Application brought by Philippe Adam Krikorian

Parties to the main proceedings


Krikorian and Others


Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to deal with the application brought by Mr Krikorian and Others.


(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
Case C-190/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — European Union water policy — River basin management plans — Publication — Failure to notify the European Commission)
Date: 2014-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, EU policy, exchange of information, infringement of EU law, water management








C_2015007EN.01001102.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/11





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
(Case C-190/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - European Union water policy - River basin management plans - Publication - Failure to notify the European Commission))
(2015/C 007/15)
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and M. Wolff, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Declares that, by failing to publish the final river basin management plans by 22 December 2009 at the latest and by failing to send a copy of those plans to the Commission by 22 March 2010 at the latest, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1), (2) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.










2)


Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.