do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-540/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Setting of the date on which an earlier decision is to take effect — Determination of the legal basis — Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — Secondary legal basis — Consultation of Parliament)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, disclosure of information, exchange of information, information system, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, terrorism








C_2015198EN.01000701.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-540/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Setting of the date on which an earlier decision is to take effect - Determination of the legal basis - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Consultation of Parliament))
(2015/C 198/08)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and A.F. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls Council Decision 2013/392/EU of 22 July 2013 fixing the date of effect of Decision 2008/633/JHA concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences;










2)


Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/392 are to be maintained until the entry into force of a new act intended to replace it;










3)


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Case C-570/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Karoline Gruber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, EMA Beratungs- und Handels GmbH, Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Construction of a retail park — Binding effect of an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment — No public participation)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, industrial project, interpretation of the law, private sector, property development, public sector








C_2015198EN.01000801.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/8





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Karoline Gruber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, EMA Beratungs- und Handels GmbH, Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend
(Case C-570/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Construction of a retail park - Binding effect of an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment - No public participation))
(2015/C 198/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Karoline Gruber

Defendants: Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, EMA Beratungs- und Handels GmbH, Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which an administrative decision declaring that a particular project does not require an environmental impact assessment, which is binding on neighbours who were precluded from bringing an action against that administrative decision, where those neighbours, who are part of the ‘public concerned’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, satisfy the criteria laid down by national law concerning ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’. It is for the referring court to verify whether that condition is fulfilled in the case before it. Where it is so fulfilled, that court must hold that the administrative decision not to carry out such an assessment is not binding on those neighbours.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case T-258/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ARKTIS — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form of use of the mark — Proof use for the registered goods — Consent of the trade mark owner)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2015190EN.01001201.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/12






Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS)
(Case T-258/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ARKTIS - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form of use of the mark - Proof use for the registered goods - Consent of the trade mark owner))
(2015/C 190/14)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting and J. Mertens, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita (Locarno, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2013 (Case R 2133/2011-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Matratzen Concord GmbH and KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs including the expenses necessarily incurred by KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  
            OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case C-278/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania)) — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Supply — Technical specifications — Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination — Obligation of transparency — Reference to a product of a particular brand — Assessment of the equivalence of the product offered by a tenderer — Reference product no longer in production)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: brand name, product quality, public contract, technical specification








C_2015198EN.01001501.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/15





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania)) — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia
(Case C-278/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Supply - Technical specifications - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency - Reference to a product of a particular brand - Assessment of the equivalence of the product offered by a tenderer - Reference product no longer in production))
(2015/C 198/19)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL

Defendant: Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(8) 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, is not applicable to a public contract with a value below the threshold for application laid down by that directive. In the context of a public contract not subject to that directive but which has certain cross-border interest, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority cannot reject a tender which satisfies the requirements of the contract notice on grounds which are not set out in that notice.


(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7526 — G.L. Swarovski/Bilfinger/ProfiCare)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil engineering, economic concentration, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, medical device, merger control








C_2015122EN.01000102.xml










16.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7526 — G.L. Swarovski/Bilfinger/ProfiCare)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 122/02)
On 10 April 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 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 32015M7526. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-548/13: Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Francisco Javier Brenes Jiménez, Andrea Jiménez Jiménez
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interest, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2015213EN.01002002.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/20





Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Francisco Javier Brenes Jiménez, Andrea Jiménez Jiménez
(Case C-548/13) (1)

(2015/C 213/31)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case C-173/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA) (Appeal — Public service contracts — Invitation to tender — Award criteria — Transparency — Objective assessment — Claim for damages)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement of EU law, invitation to tender, market approval








C_2015198EN.01001302.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/13





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA)
(Case C-173/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public service contracts - Invitation to tender - Award criteria - Transparency - Objective assessment - Claim for damages))
(2015/C 198/17)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellants: European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Marino, G. Gavriilidou and C. Maignen, agents, H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
Case C-143/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany)) — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Imports of certain pipes and tubes of iron or steel — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(7) — Damage to industry — Known factors — Causal link — Failure to take into account an investigation into anti-competitive practices by Community undertakings in the relevant sector — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 — Validity)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, tube








C_2015198EN.01001301.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/13





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany)) — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
(Case C-143/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Imports of certain pipes and tubes of iron or steel - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(7) - Damage to industry - Known factors - Causal link - Failure to take into account an investigation into anti-competitive practices by Community undertakings in the relevant sector - Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 - Validity))
(2015/C 198/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TMK Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia.


(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case C-591/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Tax legislation — Deferral of taxation of capital gains realised on the sale of certain capital assets — Recovery of the tax — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Article 31 of the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment between permanent establishments located within the territory of a Member State and permanent establishments located within the territory of another Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, branch, capital transfer tax, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, nationality of legal persons, principle of proportionality, tax collection, tax law, taxpayer








C_2015198EN.01000901.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-591/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Tax legislation - Deferral of taxation of capital gains realised on the sale of certain capital assets - Recovery of the tax - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Difference in treatment between permanent establishments located within the territory of a Member State and permanent establishments located within the territory of another Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area - Proportionality))
(2015/C 198/11)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force the tax scheme provided for in Paragraph 6b of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), which makes the benefit of the deferral of taxation of the capital gains realised on the sale of a capital asset forming part of the assets of a permanent establishment of the taxable person located within German territory subject to the condition that those capital gains are reinvested in the acquisition of replacement assets forming part of the assets of a permanent establishment of the taxable person located within that territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;










2)


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7534 — EPH/E.ON Italia coal and gas business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy industry, merger control








C_2015122EN.01000801.xml










16.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7534 — EPH/E.ON Italia coal and gas business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 122/09)






1.


On 7 April 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Energetický a průmyslový holding, a.s. (‘EPH’, Czech Republic), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of E.ON Italia SpA’s (‘E.ON Italia’, Italy) coal and gas business (‘Target’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for EPH: utility company engaged in coal extraction, electricity and heat production, distribution and supply as well as gas supply. It is mainly active in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Poland, and the UK,
—   for Target: active in the generation and wholesale supply of electricity in Italy. The Target comprises the coal and gas business of E.ON Italia. The Transaction also includes the acquisition of Sunshine, a subsidiary of E.ON Italia carrying out activity in the biomass field related to the Fiume Santo Plant.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7534 — EPH/E.ON Italia coal and gas business, 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-319/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Rauschbrille — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-04-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholism, drug addiction, registered trade mark, road safety, trade-mark law








C_2015190EN.01001402.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/14






Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille)
(Case T-319/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Rauschbrille - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 190/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Schoene, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1356/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Rauschbrille as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.