do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-27/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2015 — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT srl
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, award of contract, interpretation of the law, principle of legal certainty, services of general interest, supplies contract








C_2015138EN.01002702.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2015 — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT srl
(Case C-27/15)
(2015/C 138/39)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pippo Pizzo

Defendant: CRGT srl

Questions referred









1)


Must Articles 47 and 48 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 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, like the Italian legislation described above, which allows divided reliance upon the capacities of other entities, on the terms set out above, in respect of services?












2)


Do the principles of EU law, and, in particular, those of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality, preclude a legal rule of a Member State which permits the exclusion from a public tendering procedure of an undertaking which did not understand, because this was not expressly provided in the tender documents, that it was obliged, on pain of exclusion from that procedure, to fulfil the obligation to pay a sum in order to participate in that procedure, even though the existence of that obligation cannot be clearly deduced from the wording of the law in force in the Member State, but can nevertheless be inferred, by means of a twofold legal operation, which involves, first, interpreting extensively certain provisions of that Member State’s positive law and, then, incorporating — in accordance with the outcome of that broad interpretation — the mandatory provisions in the tendering documents?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
Case T-140/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Application for marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib — EMA decision refusing to validate the application for marketing authorisation — Market exclusivity)
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chronic illness, exclusive distribution agreement, market approval, medicinal product, therapeutics








C_2015081EN.01001301.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/13





Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA
(Case T-140/12) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Application for marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib - EMA decision refusing to validate the application for marketing authorisation - Market exclusivity))
(2015/C 081/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands); and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, K. Bacon, Barrister, G. Morgan and C. Drew, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, M. Tovar Gomis and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, P. Mihaylova and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the EMA’s decision of 24 January 2012 refusing to validate the applicants’ application for authorisation to place imatinib Ratiopharm, a generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib, on the market, in so far as concerns therapeutic indications for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action.










2)


Orders TEVA Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).










3)


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/123 of 22 January 2015 establishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Germany
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Azores, EU waters, Germany, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015021EN.01000601.xml










28.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 21/6








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/123
of 22 January 2015
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Germany


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 (2), lays down quotas for 2014.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2014.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 22 January 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


83/TQ43




Member State


Germany




Stock


MAC/8C3411




Species


Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)




Zone


VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1




Closing date


20.12.2014
Joined Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs (C-432/13) (References for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 7(2)(c) — Applicability of social security conventions between Member States — Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State — Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State — Application for grant of an old-age benefit — Refusal)
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, migrant worker, return migration, social-security benefit








C_2015107EN.01000501.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs (C-432/13)
(Joined Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 7(2)(c) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State - Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State - Application for grant of an old-age benefit - Refusal))
(2015/C 107/05)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Vasiliki Balazs (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-432/13)

Defendants: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Attila Balazs (C-432/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement which relates to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States who had the status of political refugee in the territory of the other signatory State, which was concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and which is not listed in Annex III to that regulation does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees who were repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and the regulation entered into force.


(1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.
Case T-488/13: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — GEA Group AG v OHIM (engineering for a better world) (Community trade mark — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal by fax — Receipt of the fax — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, technology, trade-mark law








C_2015089EN.01002601.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/26





Order of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — GEA Group AG v OHIM (engineering for a better world)
(Case T-488/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal by fax - Receipt of the fax - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2015/C 089/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2013 (Case R 935/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘engineering for a better world’ as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


GEA Group AG shall bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
Case T-193/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten Brauerei (H) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark H — Earlier national figurative mark H — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, registered trade mark, self-service store, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2015081EN.01001501.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/15





Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten Brauerei (H)
(Case T-193/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark H - Earlier national figurative mark H - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 081/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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: Holsten-Brauerei AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis and R. Douglas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 2340/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Holsten-Brauerei AG and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
Case C-494/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a blue background — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ — Refusal of registration
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2015146EN.01000602.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/6





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH
(Case C-494/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark in colour including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a blue background - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ - Refusal of registration)
(2015/C 146/08)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent), Villiger Söhne GmbH (represented by: B. Pikolin, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/125 of 22 January 2015 establishing a prohibition of fishing for sprat and associated bycatches in area IIIa by vessels flying the flag of Germany
Date: 2015-01-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU waters, Germany, North Sea, by-catch, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015021EN.01001001.xml










28.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 21/10








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/125
of 22 January 2015
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for sprat and associated bycatches in area IIIa by vessels flying the flag of Germany


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 (2), lays down quotas for 2014.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2014.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 22 January 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


84/TQ43




Member State


Germany




Stock


SPR/03A.




Species


Sprat and associated by-catches (Sprattus sprattus)




Zone


IIIa




Closing date


20.12.2014