do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-320/13: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, intervention: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, fine, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, renewable energy








C_2015213EN.01002001.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/20





Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, intervention: Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Case C-320/13) (1)

(2015/C 213/30)
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Case T-142/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — DHL Express (France) v OHIM — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPIING)
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, France, delivery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015171EN.01003301.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/33





Action brought on 30 March 2015 — DHL Express (France) v OHIM — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPIING)
(Case T-142/15)
(2015/C 171/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: DHL Express (France) (Le Bourget, France) (represented by: A. Casalonga, F. Codevelle and C. Bercial Arias, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chronopost (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark No 1 909 183

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 in Case R 2425/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare that the rights of the proprietor of Community registration No 1 909 183 WEBSHIPPING are to be revoked and that the mark be deemed not to have had any effects as from the date of the application for revocation, namely 6 July 2012;










—


order OHIM and the intervener (if necessary) to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-152/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: banking, customs formalities, export, guarantee








C_2015205EN.01001701.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL
(Case C-152/15)
(2015/C 205/23)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL

Question referred

The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa asks the ECJ:






—


whether a bank guarantee, provided in order to obtain an advance on export refunds, may not be enforced where it is only during inspections carried out after the actual export and customs clearance of the goods at issue that it is established that ‘other conditions’ have not yet been satisfied;










—


or whether, on the contrary, such a guarantee may be enforced where the ‘other conditions’ are not satisfied, even if that fact is established only after customs clearance.
Case T-213/13: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2015 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, United States, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015178EN.01001202.xml










1.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/12





Order of the General Court of 30 March 2015 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE)
(Case T-213/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 178/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Fransisco, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (Tarbes, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte and R. Zeineh, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 775/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne and Square, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.










2.


The applicant shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case C-151/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audiovisual piracy, catering industry, copyright, literary and artistic property, sound reproduction equipment, television equipment








C_2015205EN.01001602.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público
(Case C-151/15)
(2015/C 205/22)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL

Defendant: Ministério Público

Questions referred







i)


Is the concept of the communication of works to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) to be interpreted as encompassing the transmission of broadcast works in commercial premises such as bars, cafes, restaurants or other such establishments with similar characteristics, via television receiving apparatus, where the transmission of such works is amplified by speakers or amplifiers, thus constituting, in that context, a new use of copyright-protected works?










ii)


Does the use of speakers and/or amplifiers, that is, technical means other than television broadcast reception equipment, to amplify broadcast sound have any affect on the answer to the first question?






(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2015107EN.01000101.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/1






Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 107/01)

Last publication


OJ C 96, 23.3.2015


Past publications


OJ C 89, 16.3.2015


OJ C 81, 9.3.2015


OJ C 73, 2.3.2015


OJ C 65, 23.2.2015


OJ C 56, 16.2.2015


OJ C 46, 9.2.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-153/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_2015190EN.01000601.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/6






Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union
(Case C-153/15 P)
(2015/C 190/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, advokat, G. Pandey, Advocaat, D. Rovetta, avocat, M. Gambardella, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the order of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13, Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union, and declare the action for annulment to be admissible;










—


Refer the case back to the General Court;










—


Order the Council to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits two grounds of challenge, whereby the General Court has based the contested order on manifest errors of assessment and errors in law.
The Appellant finds that the General Court has committed manifest errors of assessment by holding first that a complete individual notification took place on 19 October 2012, and second that this notification occurred prior to the publication of a general notice of notification in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 October 2012.
Further, the Appellant finds that the General Court committed errors in law firstly by failing to take into account the requirement that a notification must include a statement of reasons, secondly by holding that an individual notification could have the effect of shortening the time limit for a judicial challenge to a legal act of the Europrean Union, thirdly by disregarding the legal consequences of the choices made by the Council in relation to the notification procedure, and fourthly by failing to take into account the legitimate understanding of the law at the time of the Application.
Case T-147/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member States' contribution, financial control, infringement of EU law, rights of the defence








C_2015213EN.01003801.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/38





Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-147/15)
(2015/C 213/63)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Očková and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Decision BUDG/B/3/RDL D(15)217973 of 20 January 2015 refusing the application for release from the obligation to provide own resources in the sum of CZK 5 3 9 76  340,00 in accordance with Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 (1);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.








1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 17(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 1150/2000






—


The applicant submits in this connection that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed Article 17(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 1150/2000, in that it incorrectly came to the conclusion that the Czech Republic had not taken all the necessary measures for providing an amount of EU own resources to the Commission, and in that it requires provision of an amount which could not be excluded on grounds which were not attributable to the Czech Republic.
















2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights of defence of the Czech Republic






—


The applicant submits on this point that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights of defence of the Czech Republic, in that it did not enable the Czech Republic to express its point of view purposefully and effectively.










(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
Case C-149/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, consumer goods, consumer protection, dealer, transfer of property








C_2015213EN.01001601.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL
(Case C-149/15)
(2015/C 213/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sabrina Wathelet

Defendant: Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

Question referred

Must the term ‘seller’ of consumer goods referred to in Article 1649bis of the Belgian Civil Code, as inserted by the Law of 1 September 1994 entitled ‘Law concerning consumer protection in matters involving the sale of consumer goods’, which transposes into Belgian law Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999‘on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees’ (1), be interpreted as covering not only a trader who, as seller, transfers ownership of consumer goods to a consumer, but also a trader who acts as intermediary for a non-trade seller, whether or not he is remunerated for his intervention and whether or not he has informed the prospective buyer that the seller is a private individual?


(1)  Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12).
Case C-148/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, market stabilisation, medicinal product, price fixed in advance, public health, supply








C_2015213EN.01001502.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
(Case C-148/15)
(2015/C 213/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V.

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a system of fixed prices laid down by national law applicable to prescription-only medicinal products constitutes a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU?










2.


If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:
Is the system of fixed prices for prescription-only medicinal products justified under to Article 36 TFEU on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans if that system is the only means of ensuring a consistent supply of medicinal products to the population across the whole of Germany, in particular in rural areas?










3.


If the Court also answers Question 2 in the affirmative:
What is the degree of judicial scrutiny required when determining whether the condition mentioned in Question 2 is in fact satisfied?
Case C-372/14: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Provident Financial s. r. o. v Zdeněk Sobotka, in the presence of: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, judicial review, redemption, restriction on competition, unfair terms of contract








C_2015213EN.01002104.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/21





Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Provident Financial s. r. o. v Zdeněk Sobotka, in the presence of: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS
(Case C-372/14) (1)

(2015/C 213/37)
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
Case T-157/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission
Date: 2015-03-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2015190EN.01002501.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/25






Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission
(Case T-157/15)
(2015/C 190/29)
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: Kristi Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (C(2015) 53 final) (1) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91  746,53;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 January 2015 (C(2015) 53 final) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91  746,53 for the years 2009 to 2011.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
By the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because the Commission wrongly ascertained and assessed the circumstances which were the basis of the decision and applied EU law incorrectly, leading to the false conclusion that Estonia had endangered EU funds.
According to the second plea, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and incorrectly applied Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2), in that the contested decision imposed a flat-rate financial correction of 2 % on Estonia.
According to the third plea, the Commission breached the principle of good administration, as it did not carefully assess and take into account all the evidence put forward by the applicant.
According to the fourth plea, the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty, as it took the view that the GAEC landscape elements standard should also have been applied and its application continually monitored in 2009.


(1)  
            OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).