do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-512/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Irish air travel tax — Exemption for transit and transfer passengers — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to open the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of parties concerned)
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, air transport, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, excise duty








C_2015016EN.01003101.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/31






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-512/11) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Irish air travel tax - Exemption for transit and transfer passengers - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to open the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of parties concerned)
(2015/C 016/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents); and Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and E. Mc Phillips, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan SC)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN));










2)


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair Ltd;










3)


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Case T-402/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Appropriateness — Nececssity — Absence of arbitrariness — Statement of reasons)
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, competition, invitation to tender, merger control, principle of proportionality








C_2015016EN.01003502.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/35






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission
(Case T-402/13) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Proportionality - Appropriateness - Nececssity - Absence of arbitrariness - Statement of reasons)
(2015/C 016/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission decisions C (2013) 4103 final and C (2013) 4194 final of 25 and 27 June 2013, relating to a procedure under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 addressed respectively to France Telecom SA and Orange and to all companies directly or indirectly controlled by them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Orange to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
Case T-375/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Word mark KASTEEL — Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015016EN.01003301.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/33






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)
(Case T-375/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Word mark KASTEEL - Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
(2015/C 016/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: R. Dequiré-Portier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2012 (Case R 652/2011-2), in opposition proceedings between Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM and Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






(1)


Dismisses the action;










(2)


Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck 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 Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM.






(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
Case T-783/14: Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, economic support, import (EU), import price, minimum price, originating product, semi-metal, solar collector








C_2015073EN.01004001.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/40






Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission
(Case T-783/14)
(2015/C 073/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the contested act; and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision to adjust the minimum import price for imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission violated Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 597/2009 (2) by adjusting the minimum import price without assessing whether the adjusted minimum import price was adequate to eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93).
Case C-537/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-341/13: Groupe Léa Nature SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01001201.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/12





Appeal brought on 25 November 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-341/13: Groupe Léa Nature SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-537/14 P)
(2015/C 118/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: D. Selden, advocate, T. Alkin, barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Groupe Léa Nature SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the decision annulling the decision of the Bord of Appeal;










—


Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with a direction that the marks in issue are similar;










—


Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


The Appellant relies on two pleas in law, namely infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR (1). In summary the appellant submits that the General Court failed to apply settled case law in its analysis of the marks in issue with the result that it wrongly concluded that the marks are entirely dissimilar.










2.


First, having found the marks phonetically similar by virtue of the common element ‘so’, the General Court should have concluded that they were similar overall, at least to that extent. Its conclusion that they were dissimilar, despite the common phonetic element, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law on the nature and degree of similarity required for the application of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5).










3.


Secondly, having held the marks to be phonetically similar, the General Court should have concluded that they were also visually similar, for essentially similar reasons (and therefore a fortiori similar within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5)). Its conclusion that they were visually dissimilar, despite the common visual element ‘so’, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law when analyzing the visual impact of the ‘so’ element within the marks.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 November 2014 on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (12052/2014 — C8-0222/2014 — 2014/0021(NLE))
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on International Trade, Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament
Subjects: consent procedure, enforcement of ruling, international convention, international trade, international trade law, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, private international law, ratification of an agreement








C_2016289EN.01007801.xml










9.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/78





P8_TA(2014)0055
Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 November 2014 on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (12052/2014 — C8-0222/2014 — 2014/0021(NLE))
(Consent)
(2016/C 289/14)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (12052/2014),










—


having regard to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (1),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 81(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0222/2014),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0034/2014),












1.


Gives its consent to the approval of the Convention;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.






(1)  OJ L 133, 29.5.2009, p. 3.
Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management — Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Series or family of trade marks — Likelihood of association — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, credit institution, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015016EN.01002501.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/25






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management)
(Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management - Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Series or family of trade marks - Likelihood of association - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)
(2015/C 016/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: UniCredit SpA, formerly UniCredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: J. Zindel, lawyer)

Re:

Actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the actions.










2)


Dismisses Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH’s applications for annulment and alteration.










3)


Orders Credit SpA to pay the costs, save those incurred by Union Investment Privatfonds.










4)


Orders Union Investment Privatfonds to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
Case T-384/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Claim for damages)
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, right to justice








C_2015016EN.01003001.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/30






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council
(Case T-384/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Claim for damages)
(2015/C 016/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (Ispahan, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by A. Vitro and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, and subsequently by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for damage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls, in so far as they concern Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.:






—


point 19 of Part I.B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;










—


point 61 of Part I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;














2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan compensation of EUR 50 000 in respect of the non-material damage sustained by the latter;










3.


Orders that the compensation to be paid to Safa Nicu Sepahan be paid with default interest, as from the delivery of the present judgment to full payment of that compensation, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;










4.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










5.


Orders the Council to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief and to pay half the costs incurred by Safa Nicu Sepahan in both those proceedings; orders Safa Nicu Sepahan to bear half the costs it has incurred in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case C-536/14: Action brought on 25 November 2014  — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2014-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, information network, regulation of telecommunications, systems interconnection, transmission network








C_2015034EN.01001402.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/14





Action brought on 25 November 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-536/14)
(2015/C 034/16)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that:






—


by failing to carry out and notify the analyses of markets 7 and 14 in Recommendation 2003/311/EC (1) and markets 1 and 6 in Recommendation 2007/879/EC (2) within three years from the adoption of previous measures concerning the markets in question, and by failing to notify a reasoned proposed extension to the time-limit to the Commission,










—


and by failing to request BEREC’s assistance in completing the analyses of the markets in question,




the Grand Duchy has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(6) and (7) of Directive 2002/21/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009;










—


order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the first place, the Commission complains that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not carried out nor has it notified the analyses of markets 7 and 14 in Recommendation 2003/311/EC and markets 1 and 6 in Recommendation 2007/879/EC within three years from the adoption of previous measures concerning the markets in question.
In the second place, the Commission complains that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not requested, within the time-limits set, BEREC’s assistance in completing the analyses of the specific markets and adopting the regulatory measures that are required.


(1)  Commission Recommendation 2003/311/EC of 11 February 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services (OJ 2003 L 114, p. 45).

(2)  Commission Recommendation 2007/879/EC of 17 December 2007 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2007 L 344, p. 65).

(3)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

(4)  OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37.