do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-582/10: Order of the General Court of 18 February 2015 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment, anti-dumping measure, sales representative








C_2015127EN.01003901.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/39





Order of the General Court of 18 February 2015 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council
(Case T-582/10) (1)

(2015/C 127/52)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7332 — BSkyB/Sky Deutschland/Sky Italia)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, advertising, audiovisual programme, economic concentration, merger control, telephone








C_2015058EN.01000101.xml










18.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7332 — BSkyB/Sky Deutschland/Sky Italia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 58/01)
On 11 September 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 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 32014M7332. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7485 — Swisscom/Sixt/Managed Mobility JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry, vehicle rental








C_2015058EN.01000102.xml










18.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7485 — Swisscom/Sixt/Managed Mobility JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 58/02)
On 11 February 2015, 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 German 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 32015M7485. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Finland, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2015058EN.01000601.xml










18.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/6





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2015/C 58/05)



Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.


Issuing country
: Finland


Subject of commemoration
: The 150th anniversary of the birth of composer Jean Sibelius


Description of the design
: At the inner part of the coin is sky with stars, tree tops at the right. The text ‘JEAN SIBELIUS’ and the year of issuance ‘2015’ are placed at the left inner part of the coin. At the right is the indication of the issuing country ‘FI’ and the mint mark.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.


Number of coins to be issued
: 


Date of issue
: January 2015


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case T-76/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: applied research, innovation, research and development








C_2015146EN.01004001.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/40





Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT
(Case T-76/15)
(2015/C 146/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: KENUP Foundation (Kalkara, Malta), Candena GmbH (Lüneburg, Germany), Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo (CO BIK) (Ajdovščina, Slovenia), Evotec AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, C. Wagner and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, of 9 December 2014, on the designation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (02008.EIT.2014.I.EIT.GB) and on the rejection of the KENUP proposal as notified by letter of 10 December 2014 (012234.EIT.D.2014.MK) and










—


order the EIT to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions rejecting the KENUP proposal were not taken by the competent EU body.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to follow the applicable selection procedure when adopting the contested decisions.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to state reasons by not notifying the designation decision to the applicants.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external expert violates the principle of equal treatment.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the principles of transparency and the obligation to state reasons.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the Horizon 2020 Participation Regulation’s provisions on ethical review.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts contains manifest errors in the assessment of the proposal.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that experts of the EIT’s and members of the EIT Governing Board involved in the selection procedure leading to the Contested Decision were in a position that brought their interests into conflict with those of the European Union.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the EIT 2014 Call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) violates the rules of procedure governing the KICs selection procedure.
Case C-74/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2015 — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare and Others
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, consumer, consumer protection, credit, firm governed by commercial law, guarantee, interpretation of the law, provision of services, sale








C_2015171EN.01001401.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2015 — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare and Others
(Case C-74/15)
(2015/C 171/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău

Respondents: Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare, Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA Arad, Cristian Nicolae Tarcău, Corina Tarcău, SC Magenta, in the person of the liquidator, Pareto Grup IPURL, SC Crisco SRL, in the person of the special administrator, CII Renata Moldovan, SC Crisco SRL, in the person of the special administrator, Cristian Tarcău

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), as regards the definition of ‘consumer’, be interpreted as including in or, conversely, as excluding from, that definition natural persons who have, as guarantors/sureties, concluded additional acts and contracts (guarantee contracts, contracts providing immovable property as security) ancillary to the credit agreement entered into by a commercial company in order to carry on its activity, in circumstances in which those natural persons have no connection with the activities of the commercial company and have acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession.










2.


Must Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that only contracts concluded between traders and consumers concerning the sale of goods or supply of services fall within the ambit of that directive or as meaning that contracts (contracts of guarantee and of surety) ancillary to a credit agreement, the beneficiary of which is a commercial company, concluded by natural persons who have no connection with the activities of that commercial company and who acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession also fall within the ambit of that directive?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7511 — Barclays Bank/CNP Barclays Vida y Pensiones Compania de Seguros) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, insurance company, life assurance, merger control








C_2015058EN.01001301.xml










18.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7511 — Barclays Bank/CNP Barclays Vida y Pensiones Compania de Seguros)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 58/09)






1.


On 11 February 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Barclays Bank PLC (‘Barclays’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of CNP Barclays Vida y Pensiones Compania de Seguros, S.A. (‘CNP BVP’, Spain) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Barclays: worldwide provision of financial services including retail and commercial banking, credit cards, investment banking, wealth management and investment management services,
—   for CNP BVP: provision of insurance and pension products in Spain, Portugal and Italy.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7511 — Barclays Bank/CNP Barclays Vida y Pensiones Compania de Seguros, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Special Report No 23/2014 ‘Errors in rural development spending: what are the causes, and how are they being addressed?’
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: cost analysis, development aid, rural development








C_2015058EN.01000801.xml










18.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/8





Special Report No 23/2014 ‘Errors in rural development spending: what are the causes, and how are they being addressed?’
(2015/C 58/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 23/2014 ‘Errors in rural development spending: what are the causes, and how are they being addressed?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case C-73/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, domestic market, environmental tax, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, tax exemption, vehicle registration








C_2015155EN.01001401.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-73/15)
(2015/C 155/14)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC Vicdantrans SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing a tax, called an ‘environmental stamp duty’, such as that provided for in Emergency Government Order No 9/2013, payable upon the registration of second-hand motor vehicles coming from another Member State or upon the transfer of ownership of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market, but not payable in respect of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market for which a similar tax — levied contrary to EU law — had been previously paid which has not been repaid?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015058EN.01000201.xml










18.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 February 2015
(2015/C 58/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1415




JPY


Japanese yen


135,61




DKK


Danish krone


7,4440




GBP


Pound sterling


0,74340




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5235




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0631




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,5725




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,619




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,81




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1872




RON


Romanian leu


4,4467




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7935




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4593




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4125




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8568




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5141




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5463




KRW


South Korean won


1 262,44




ZAR


South African rand


13,2357




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1403




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,7250




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 574,79




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0919




PHP


Philippine peso


50,375




RUB


Russian rouble


71,4409




THB


Thai baht


37,184




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2395




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9330




INR


Indian rupee


70,9893






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7508 — DCC Energy/Esso SAF) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, petroleum product








C_2015058EN.01001401.xml










18.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7508 — DCC Energy/Esso SAF)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 58/10)






1.


On 11 February 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which DCC Energy (Republic of Ireland), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the French retail motor fuel distribution business of Esso SAF (‘Target business’, France), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


DCC Energy is a publicly listed company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. DCC operates across five divisions in various industry areas: DCC Technology, DCC Healthcare, DCC Environmental, DCC Food & Beverage and DCC Energy,










—


the Target business operates a motor fuel distribution chain in France.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7508 — DCC Energy/Esso SAF to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-90/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015  — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, communications industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01004402.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/44





Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)
(Case T-90/15)
(2015/C 118/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Schoeller Corporation GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. van Ackeren, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sqope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCOPE’ — Application No 4 5 02  341

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 2381/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the services financial analysis and financial information;










—


order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-84/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Laboratorios Thea v OHIM — Sebapharma (Sebacur)
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, eye disease, registered trade mark, research body, trade-mark law








C_2015118EN.01004201.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/42





Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Laboratorios Thea v OHIM — Sebapharma (Sebacur)
(Case T-84/15)
(2015/C 118/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Thea, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Mallo Saint-Jalmes, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Sebacur’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 54  194

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 2403/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s request to annul the decision of the Opposition Division and it ordered the applicant to reimburse EUR 550 to Sebapharma GmbH & Co.;










—


Order the losing party to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.