do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-163/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015254EN.01000301.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
(Case C-163/15)
(2015/C 254/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Youssef Hassan

Defendant: Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

Questions referred







1.


Does the first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) preclude a licensee who is not entered in the Register of Community trade marks from invoking claims for infringement of a Community trade mark?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: Does the first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark preclude a national legal practice in accordance with which the licensee can enforce the trade mark proprietor’s rights against the infringer by virtue of the power conferred on it for that purpose (Prozessstandschaft)?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7516 — Starwood Capital Group/Melia Hotels International/Sol & Melia Hotel Portfolio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015114EN.01000501.xml










9.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7516 — Starwood Capital Group/Melia Hotels International/Sol & Melia Hotel Portfolio)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 114/06)






1.


On 30 March 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Starwood Capital Group (United States) and Melia Hotels International (Spain) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of six hotels located in Spain (the ‘Sol & Melia Hotel Portfolio’) by way of purchase of shares and contracts of management.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Starwood Capital Group: investment firm focusing on global real estate;
—   for Melia Hotels International: hotel company and the largest hotel chain in Spain in both resort and city hotels. It currently operates more than 350 hotels in 35 countries;
—   for Sol & Melia Hotel Portfolio: consists of six hotels in popular vacation resorts in Spain (Costa del Sol, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, Mallorca and Ibiza).










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 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.7516 — Starwood Capital Group/Melia Hotels International/Sol & Melia Hotel Portfolio, 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7513 — AR Packaging Group/MWV European Tobacco and General Packaging Folding Carton Operations) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, packaging product








C_2015114EN.01000101.xml










9.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7513 — AR Packaging Group/MWV European Tobacco and General Packaging Folding Carton Operations)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 114/01)
On 31 March 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 English 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 32015M7513. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-165/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-500/12: Ryanair Ltd. v European Commission
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, carriage of passengers, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, low cost airline, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition, tax relief








C_2015205EN.01002001.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/20





Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-500/12: Ryanair Ltd. v European Commission
(Case C-165/15 P)
(2015/C 205/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd., Ireland, Aer Lingus Ltd.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 in Case T-500/12 Ryanair v Commission in so far as it held that Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (1) was annulled in so far as that decision 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; and










—


reject the application to annul Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland;










—


order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;
alternatively,






—


refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;










—


reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
The appellant claims that by creating a new economic test to be applied when determining the amounts to be recovered from beneficiaries of State aid consisting of a tax measure fixing a lower rate by reference to a standard rate, the General Court violated Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2).


(1)  OJ L 119, p. 30.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, p. 1.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, Union delegation, competition (EU)








C_2015114EN.01000301.xml










9.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/3





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2015/C 114/04)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AST/135/15 — Heads of Administration (AST 4) in EU Delegations




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 114 A of 9 April 2015.
Further information can be found on EPSO’s website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case C-161/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v Belgian State
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU law - national law, general legal principle, residence permit, rights of the defence








C_2015190EN.01000701.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v Belgian State
(Case C-161/15)
(2015/C 190/07)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal

Defendant: Belgian State

Question referred

Does the general principle of European Union Law upholding the rights of the defence, including the right of an individual to be heard by a national authority before any decision is taken by that authority likely adversely to affect that individual’s interests such as a decision ending that individual’s residence authorisation, carry in the legal system of the European Union an equivalent importance to that held by the rules of public policy in the Belgian legal system, and does the principle of equivalence require that a plea can be raised for the first time before the Conseil d’État hearing an appeal in cassation based on breach of the general principle of EU law of the right to a fair hearing as is permitted in the national law for pleas based on public policy?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7547 — Varo/GEKOL) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, petroleum product








C_2015114EN.01000102.xml










9.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7547 — Varo/GEKOL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 114/02)
On 31 March 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 English 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 32015M7547. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-177/15: Action brought on 9 April 2015 — Grandel v OHIM — The Colomer Group Spain (Beautygen)
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015198EN.01004101.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/41





Action brought on 9 April 2015 — Grandel v OHIM — The Colomer Group Spain (Beautygen)
(Case T-177/15)
(2015/C 198/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Dollinger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Colomer Group Spain, SL (Cornellá de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Beautygen’ — Application No 11 623 105

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2015 in Case R 1430/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7568 — M1 Fashion/LVMH/Pepe Jeans Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, luxury products industry, merger control, textile industry








C_2015114EN.01000401.xml










9.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7568 — M1 Fashion/LVMH/Pepe Jeans Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 114/05)






1.


On 27 March 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking L Capital Asia 2 Pte. Limited (‘L Capital Asia’, Singapore), controlled by LVMH Moët Hennessy — Louis Vuitton S.A. (‘LVMH’, France) and the undertaking M1 Fashion Limited (‘M1 Fashion’, British Virgin Islands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking Pepe Jeans S.L. (‘Pepe Jeans Group’, Spain) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for LVMH: production and sale of luxury goods (wines and spirits; fashion and leather goods, including accessories; perfumes and cosmetics; watches and jewellery; selective retailing as well as the luxury yachts industry). LVMH is controlled by Groupe Arnault, which also controls Christian Dior Couture,
—   for M1 Fashion: investing in different economic sectors including sale of luxury fashion and leather goods under Façonnable brand,
—   for Pepe Jeans Group: sale of luxury fashion products under Hackett brand and of denim fashion under Pepe Jeans brand.










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 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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7568 — M1 Fashion/LVMH/Pepe Jeans Group, 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015114EN.01000201.xml










9.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 April 2015
(2015/C 114/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0862




JPY


Japanese yen


130,09




DKK


Danish krone


7,4717




GBP


Pound sterling


0,72640




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3595




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0438




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,6766




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,378




HUF


Hungarian forint


296,62




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0171




RON


Romanian leu


4,3955




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8140




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4078




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3487




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4183




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4315




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4706




KRW


South Korean won


1 184,59




ZAR


South African rand


12,7982




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,7377




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6085




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 056,95




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9431




PHP


Philippine peso


48,255




RUB


Russian rouble


58,6005




THB


Thai baht


35,367




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3676




MXN


Mexican peso


16,1382




INR


Indian rupee


67,6105






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-164/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12: Aer Lingus Ltd. v European Commission
Date: 2015-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, air traffic, airline, carriage of passengers, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, reduced price, reimbursement of aid, tax relief








C_2015205EN.01001901.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/19





Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12: Aer Lingus Ltd. v European Commission
(Case C-164/15 P)
(2015/C 205/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aer Lingus Ltd., Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12 Aer Lingus v Commission in so far as it held that Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (1) was annulled in so far as that decision 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; and










—


reject the application to annul Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland;










—


order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;
alternatively,






—


refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;










—


reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
The appellant claims that by creating a new economic test to be applied when determining the amounts to be recovered from beneficiaries of State aid consisting of a tax measure fixing a lower rate by reference to a standard rate, the General Court violated Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2).


(1)  OJ L 119, p. 30.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, p. 1.