do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-296/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Interest-free loans, backed by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to operators in the cereals sector — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, agricultural holding, agro-industrial cropping, cereal-growing, control of State aid, free credit, guarantee








C_2015146EN.01001101.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/11





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-296/14) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Interest-free loans, backed by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to operators in the cereals sector - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))
(2015/C 146/16)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A Bouchagiar, D. Triantafyllou and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the order







1)


The appeal is dismissed.










2)


The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Call for proposals — EIBI’s fourth Social Innovation Tournament
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: European Investment Bank
Subjects: European social policy, access to education, equal treatment, innovation, integration of people with disabilities, invitation to tender, marginalisation, right to health








C_2015039EN.01000301.xml










5.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/3





Call for proposals
EIBI’s fourth Social Innovation Tournament
(2015/C 39/03)
EIB Institute organises its fourth Social Innovation Tournament
The Social Innovation Tournament established by the EIB Institute in 2012 is the flagship initiative of its Social Programme. The Tournament seeks to promote the generation of innovative ideas and identify and reward opportunities that hold out the promise of substantial societal benefits or demonstrate best practice with tangible, scalable outcomes. It targets the creation of social value in the fight against social exclusion. It thus covers projects in a wide range of fields, from education and healthcare to the natural and urban environments, through new technologies, new systems and new processes. Improvements in these fields are critical to business success, and social innovation could have a substantial social impact. With the introduction of a Special Category Prize in 2013, additional emphasis will be given to a specific field each year. In 2015 the Special Category Prize will be awarded to projects addressing the topic of equal opportunities with a special emphasis on people with disabilities.

For details of the 2015 Social Innovation Tournament please visit the Tournament’s website at http://institute.eib.org/programmes/social/social-innovation-tournament/
Case C-498/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 — Agricultural production methods meeting the requirements of environmental protection and upkeep of the countryside — Long-term set-aside of agricultural land for purposes connected with the environment — Agri-environmental aid paid to farmers and cofinanced by the European Union — Status as recipient of such aid)
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural production, aid recipient, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, cultivation techniques








C_2015107EN.01000901.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)
(Case C-498/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 - Agricultural production methods meeting the requirements of environmental protection and upkeep of the countryside - Long-term set-aside of agricultural land for purposes connected with the environment - Agri-environmental aid paid to farmers and cofinanced by the European Union - Status as recipient of such aid))
(2015/C 107/11)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agrooikosystimata EPE

Defendants: Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside must be interpreted as meaning that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set aside scheme for agricultural land provided for in Article 2(1)(f) thereof.


(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
Case T-500/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, aid recipient, air transport, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, excise duty, passenger tariff, reduced price








C_2015096EN.01001301.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/13





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-500/12) (1)

((State aid - Irish tax on air passengers - Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Selective nature - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 096/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, D. Bailey, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan, SC, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (OJ 2013 L 119, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Ryanair Ltd;










4.


Orders Ryanair to pay half of its own costs;










5.


Orders Aer Lingus Ltd and Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case T-499/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — nMetric LLC v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark SMARTER SCHEDULING — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2015096EN.01001701.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/17





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — nMetric LLC v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)
(Case T-499/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark SMARTER SCHEDULING - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 096/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: nMetric LLC (Costa Mesa, California, United States) (represented by: T. Fuchs and A. Münch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2013 (Case R 887/2012-2), concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the word mark SMARTER SCHEDULING.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders nMetric LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 344, 5.2.13.
Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Drug precursors — Monitoring of trade between the Member States — Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 — Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries — Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 — Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ — Composition — Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted — Directive 2001/83/EC — Definition of ‘medicinal product’)
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cataloguing, drug surveillance, drug traffic, market supervision, medicinal product, psychotropic substance, third country








C_2015107EN.01001101.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)
(Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Drug precursors - Monitoring of trade between the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Composition - Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted - Directive 2001/83/EC - Definition of ‘medicinal product’))
(2015/C 107/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties in the main proceedings

Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors respectively must be interpreted as meaning that a medicinal product as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, cannot be categorised as a ‘scheduled substance’ as such, even if it contains a substance referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 273/2004 and in the annex to Regulation No 111/2005 and can easily be used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means.


(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Case T-78/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BULLDOG — Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical nature of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Conceptual similarity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015096EN.01001501.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/15





Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)
(Case T-78/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BULLDOG - Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical nature of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Conceptual similarity - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 096/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented: initially by A. Renck, T. Heitmann, lawyers, and I. Fowler, Solicitor, and subsequently by A. Renck and I. Fowler)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: F. Mattina, subsequently by P. Bullock and A. Schifko, acting as Agents, subsequently by D. Walicka and finally by M. Schifko)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sun Mark Ltd (Middlesex, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd;










2.


Declares inadmissible Red Bull’s form of order requesting that Sun Mark be ordered to pay the costs










3.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/194 of 5 February 2015 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ossau-Iraty (PDO))
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Aquitaine, France, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, sheep's milk cheese








L_2015033EN.01000501.xml










10.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 33/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/194
of 5 February 2015
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ossau-Iraty (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Ossau-Iraty’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1660/2003 (3).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation (4).












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Ossau-Iraty’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 5 February 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1660/2003 of 19 September 2003 amending the specification of a name appearing in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (Ossau-Iraty) (OJ L 234, 20.9.2003, p. 10).

(4)  
            OJ C 319, 17.9.2014, p. 23.
Case C-44/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 February 2015 —Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, customs harmonisation, customs tariff, measuring equipment








C_2015127EN.01001101.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 February 2015 —Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-44/15)
(2015/C 127/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

Respondent: Duval GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred







1.


In the absence of an abstract definition of what constitutes a thermometer as referred to in CN heading 9025, should CN heading 9025 (‘thermometers’) be taken, exceptionally, to comprise only the devices listed in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System concerning CN heading 9025, Section B (thermometers and pyrometers, recording or not — Nos 08.0 to 28.0)?










2.


If this question is to be answered in the negative: Should it be deduced from the listing of the devices in the Explanatory Notes to the HS concerning CN heading 9025 that devices which do not function in ways that are incorporated in those devices (measuring of temperature by means, for example, of the mechanical expansion of liquids or metals, physical changes or electrical impulses, etc.) cannot be classified as falling under CN heading 9025?










3.


If this question too is to be answered in the negative: Do thermometers within the meaning of CN heading 9025 also include devices which indicate that the temperature of an object which is to be measured has reached a predetermined value (threshold value), even if the device does not meet such criteria as reproducibility of the measurement result, continuous indication of changes in temperature and the possibility of using the device repeatedly?
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/197 of 5 February 2015 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aglio Bianco Polesano (PDO))
Date: 2015-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Veneto, bulb vegetable, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2015033EN.01000801.xml










10.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 33/8








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/197
of 5 February 2015
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aglio Bianco Polesano (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined the application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Aglio Bianco Polesano’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1175/2009 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation (3).












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Aglio Bianco Polesano’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 5 February 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1175/2009 of 30 November 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aglio Bianco Polesano (PDO)) (OJ L 314, 1.12.2009, p. 60).

(3)  
            OJ C 347, 3.10.2014, p. 18.