do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-521/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market-sharing agreement — 2002 Leniency Notice — Immunity from fines — Legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: electric machinery, fine, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice, sanction (EU)








C_2015016EN.01002701.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/27






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission
(Case T-521/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing agreement - 2002 Leniency Notice - Immunity from fines - Legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons)
(2015/C 016/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SAS (Paris, France) (represented initially by: A. Schild, C. Simphal and E. Estellon, and subsequently by: J. Derenne, A. Müller-Rappard and M. Domecq, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final, of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

Operative part of the judgment:

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Alstom Grid SAS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ 2010 C 51, 27.2.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7407 — Lear Corporation/Everett Smith Group)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, leather industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2014425EN.01000101.xml










27.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7407 — Lear Corporation/Everett Smith Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 425/01
On 21 November 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 32014M7407. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
European Police College — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training
Subjects: CEPOL, financial year, publication of accounts








C_2014425EN.01000302.xml










27.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/3





EUROPEAN POLICE COLLEGE
Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013
2014/C 425/04
The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:
https://www.cepol.europa.eu/who-we-are/key-documents/final-accounts
Case T-154/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa ZENATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Ripassa ZENATO — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2015016EN.01002802.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/28






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa ZENATO)
(Case T-154/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Ripassa ZENATO - Earlier national word mark RIPASSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
(2015/C 016/46)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 700/2010–2) concerning opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
Case T-153/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZENATO RIPASSA — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2015016EN.01002801.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/28






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA)
(Case T-153/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZENATO RIPASSA - Earlier national word mark RIPASSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
(2015/C 016/45)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 183/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
Case C-544/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2015073EN.01001002.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-544/14)
(2015/C 073/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Catherine Gimmig

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
This Case was removed from the Register of the Court by Order of the Court of 10 January 2015.
Case T-517/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Effect on trade between Member States — Concept of undertaking — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: electric machinery, parent company, restriction on competition, subsidiary








C_2015016EN.01002602.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/26






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission
(Case T-517/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Effect on trade between Member States - Concept of undertaking - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary - Duty to state reasons)
(2015/C 016/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers), in so far as it concerns Alstom;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
Case T-674/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — SEA v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Obligation to recover aid granted by the public operator of an airport to a subsidiary management company — Liquidation of the company — Creation of a new management company — Commission decision to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure in order to assess the existence of any economic continuity between the two companies — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Manifest inadmissibility of the main application — Inadmissibility — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, airport, control of State aid, subsidiary








C_2015026EN.01003401.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/34





Order of the President of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — SEA v Commission
(Case T-674/14 R)
((Application for interim measures - State aid - Obligation to recover aid granted by the public operator of an airport to a subsidiary management company - Liquidation of the company - Creation of a new management company - Commission decision to initiate a formal State aid investigation procedure in order to assess the existence of any economic continuity between the two companies - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Manifest inadmissibility of the main application - Inadmissibility - Lack of urgency))
(2015/C 026/43)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Società per azioni esercizi aeroportuali (SEA) (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti, J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, the suspension of European Commission Decision C(2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU concerning the establishment of the company Airport Handling [SA.21420 (2014/NN) — Italy — Establishment of Airport Handling].

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg) — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: Translation Centre
Subjects: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, financial year, publication of accounts








C_2014425EN.01000301.xml










27.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/3





TRANSLATION CENTRE FOR THE BODIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (LUXEMBOURG)
Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013
2014/C 425/03
The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:
http://cdt.europa.eu/EN/documentation/Pages/Revenue-and-expenditure-account-and-balance-sheet.aspx
Case C-539/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2014  — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2015026EN.01002101.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-539/14)
(2015/C 026/25)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), in conjunction with Articles 47, 34(3) and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2), be interpreted as precluding a procedural provision of the kind laid down in Article 695(4) of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals against a decision determining the outcome of an objection to enforcement proceedings in relation to mortgaged or pledged goods, which allows an appeal to be brought only against an order staying the proceedings, disapplying an unfair term or dismissing an opposition based on an unfair term, the immediate consequence of which is that more legal remedies on appeal are available to the seller or supplier seeking enforcement than to the consumer against whom enforcement is sought?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 of 2 September 2014 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, and making such imports subject to registration ( OJ L 263, 3.9.2014 )
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Cambodia, China, Pakistan, Philippines, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), infringement procedure (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








L_2014341EN.01003101.xml










27.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 341/31







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 of 2 September 2014 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, and making such imports subject to registration

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 263 of 3 September 2014
)


On page 5, recital 3:
for:

               ‘… falling within CN codes 8712 00 30  and ex 8712 00 70  and originating in the People's Republic of China (“the product concerned”).’,
read:

               ‘… falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30  and ex 8712 00 70  and originating in the People's Republic of China (“the product concerned”).’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014425EN.01000201.xml










27.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

26 November 2014
2014/C 425/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2475




JPY


Japanese yen


146,91




DKK


Danish krone


7,4396




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79095




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2514




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2026




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,5100




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,579




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,60




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1801




RON


Romanian leu


4,4173




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7687




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4667




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4057




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6737




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5921




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6234




KRW


South Korean won


1 382,65




ZAR


South African rand


13,6860




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6578




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6772




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 193,91




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1806




PHP


Philippine peso


56,100




RUB


Russian rouble


58,3900




THB


Thai baht


40,893




BRL


Brazilian real


3,1340




MXN


Mexican peso


17,0658




INR


Indian rupee


77,1579






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-173/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Carrera — Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings)
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015016EN.01002901.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/29






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera)
(Case T-173/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Carrera - Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings)
(2015/C 016/47)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer) and Lutter & Partner GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 306/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG and Mr Kurt Hesse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.






(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
Case C-542/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014  — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’ ), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ , SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
Date: 2014-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: inter-company agreement, manager, provision of services, restriction on competition








C_2015056EN.01000601.xml










16.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
(Case C-542/14)
(2015/C 056/08)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Question referred

Must Article 101(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for it to be established that an undertaking has participated in an agreement restricting competition, it must be shown that an officer of the undertaking has personally engaged in conduct or been aware of, or consented to, conduct by persons providing an external service to the undertaking and at the same time acting on behalf of other parties to a possible prohibited practice?