do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-339/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/126/EC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Period of prohibition — Issue of the driving licence by a Member State before the entry into force of a period of prohibition in the Member State of normal residence — Grounds for refusing to recognise in the Member State of normal residence the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: driving licence, mutual recognition principle, penalty, traffic offence








C_2015236EN.01001902.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/19





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann
(Case C-339/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Period of prohibition - Issue of the driving licence by a Member State before the entry into force of a period of prohibition in the Member State of normal residence - Grounds for refusing to recognise in the Member State of normal residence the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State))
(2015/C 236/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Party in the criminal proceedings

Andreas Wittmann

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a measure by which the Member State of normal residence of the driver of a motor vehicle, which is unable to withdraw his driving licence because he has already been subject to an earlier withdrawal decision, orders that a new driving licence may not be issued to him for a given period of time must be regarded as a measure restricting, suspending or withdrawing the driving licence for the purposes of that provision, with the consequence that it precludes the recognition of any licence issued by another Member State before the expiry of that period. The fact that the judgment concerning that measure became final after the issue of the driving licence in the second Member State is irrelevant in that regard, provided that the licence was obtained after the delivery of that judgment and the grounds justifying that measure existed on the date that licence was issued.


(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
Case T-8/13: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: infringement of EU law, insecticide, market approval, plant health control








C_2015228EN.01002503.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/25





Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
(Case T-8/13) (1)

(2015/C 228/32)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
Case C-657/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hilden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions — Staggered recovery of tax on unrealised capital gains — Preservation of allocation of powers of taxation between Member States — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agency abroad, capital gains tax, capital transfer, right of establishment, tax collection








C_2015236EN.01001101.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hilden
(Case C-657/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Restrictions - Staggered recovery of tax on unrealised capital gains - Preservation of allocation of powers of taxation between Member States - Proportionality))
(2015/C 236/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Hilden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the case of a transfer of assets from a company located within the territory of that Member State to a permanent establishment of that company located within the territory of another Member State, provides for the disclosure of unrealised capital gains pertaining to those assets which have been generated within the territory of that first Member State, the taxation of such capital gains and the staggered recovery of the tax relating to those gains over 10 annual instalments.


(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015166EN.01000101.xml










21.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 May 2015
(2015/C 166/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1118




JPY


Japanese yen


134,43




DKK


Danish krone


7,4598




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71570




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2927




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0429




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,3975




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,330




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,50




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0653




RON


Romanian leu


4,4458




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8845




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4070




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3578




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6193




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5143




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4851




KRW


South Korean won


1 218,25




ZAR


South African rand


13,2281




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8974




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5338




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 609,91




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,0180




PHP


Philippine peso


49,579




RUB


Russian rouble


55,4715




THB


Thai baht


37,334




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3759




MXN


Mexican peso


16,8716




INR


Indian rupee


70,9265






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-231/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: price regulations, principle of legal certainty, regulation of telecommunications, right to justice, transmission network








C_2015294EN.01001801.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.
(Case C-231/15)
(2015/C 294/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku

Respondent: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) be interpreted as meaning that — in the event that a network provider contests a decision of the national regulatory authority setting call termination rates in the network of that undertaking (MTR decision), and that undertaking then contests a subsequent decision of the national regulatory authority amending a contract between the addressee of the MTR decision and another undertaking so that the rates paid by that other undertaking for call termination in the network of the addressee of the MTR decision correspond to the rates set in the MTR decision (implementing decision) — the national court, having found that the MTR decision has been annulled, cannot annul the implementing decision in view of the fourth sentence of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21 and the interests which the undertaking benefitting from the implementing decision derives from the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations or of legal certainty, or must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the national court may annul the implementing decision of the national regulatory authority and consequently remove the obligations laid down therein for the period preceding the judgment if it finds that that is necessary in order to provide effective protection for the rights of the undertaking appealing against the national regulatory authority’s decision that enforces the obligations laid down in the MTR decision which was subsequently annulled?


(1)  
            OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.
Case T-253/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona v Commission
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, amortisation, control of State aid, corporation tax, goodwill, reimbursement of aid, shareholding, tax relief








C_2015245EN.01003601.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/36





Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona v Commission
(Case T-253/15)
(2015/C 245/42)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. de Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought







—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, if the main claim is rejected, annul the contested decision insofar as it does not limit the recovery order to indirect acquisitions made after 21 December 2007, and does not recognise the right to full application of tax concessions during the entire period provided for in Article 12.5 of the Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March approving the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (the consolidated text of the Spanish Company Tax Act), and










—


order the European Commission to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission, and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.
The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.
It is claimed in particular that there was an error in law in the application of the selectivity criterion, that there was a misuse of powers and an infringement of the principles of equality and legitimate expectations.
Case T-420/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval-Vinhos (Wine in Black) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Wine in Black — Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2015221EN.01001401.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/14





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval-Vinhos (Wine in Black)
(Case T-420/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Wine in Black - Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wine in Black GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Bauer and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M.L. Vuijst and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA (Pinhão, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA and Wine in Black GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-635/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark URB — Application for the earlier national mark URB, earlier national collective word mark URB, earlier national collective figurative mark URB and earlier international figurative marks URB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No infringement of Articles 22(3) and 72(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mechanical equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01001501.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/15





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)
(Case T-635/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark URB - Application for the earlier national mark URB, earlier national collective word mark URB, earlier national collective figurative mark URB and earlier international figurative marks URB - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No infringement of Articles 22(3) and 72(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary) (represented by: G. Bozocea, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2014 (Case R 1974/2013-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA and Mr Harun Adiguzel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs;










3.


Orders Mr Harun Adiguzel to bear his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
Case T-403/13: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — APRAM v Commission (Action for annulment — Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EU) No 1164/94 — Reduction of financial assistance — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Madeira, Portugal, financial aid, harbour installation








C_2015228EN.01001301.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/13





Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — APRAM v Commission
(Case T-403/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EU) No 1164/94 - Reduction of financial assistance - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 228/15)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: APRAM — Administração dos Portos da Região Autónoma da Madeira, SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1870 final, of 27 March 2013, which reduces the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the project ‘Development of Port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira, Portugal.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


APRAM — Administração dos Portos da Região Autónoma da Madeira, SA is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Case T-201/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Rubinum v Commission (Public health — Food safety — Additive for use in animal nutrition — Preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi — Commission decision to suspend the authorisations of that preparation — Risk to health — Error of Law — Precautionary principle)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, food safety, food supplement, market approval, public health, withdrawal from the market








C_2015221EN.01000902.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/9





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Rubinum v Commission
(Case T-201/13) (1)

((Public health - Food safety - Additive for use in animal nutrition - Preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi - Commission decision to suspend the authorisations of that preparation - Risk to health - Error of Law - Precautionary principle))
(2015/C 221/12)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rubinum, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, B. Schima and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013 of 25 March 2013 concerning the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (NCIMB 40112/CNCM I-1012) as provided for by Regulations (EC) No 256/2002, (EC) No 1453/2004, (EC) No 255/2005, (EC) No 1200/2005, (EC) No 166/2008 and (EC) No 378/2009 (OJ 2013 L 86, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rubinum, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
Case T-22/13 and T-23/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Senz Technologies BV v OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing umbrellas — Grounds for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — American patent as earlier design — Circles specialised in the sector concerned — Informed user — Degree of attention of an informed user — Fashion accessories — Degree of freedom of the designer — Individual character — Different overall impression — Invalidity proceedings)
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, designs and models, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015221EN.01000801.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/8





Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Senz Technologies BV v OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)
(Case T-22/13 and T-23/13) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing umbrellas - Grounds for invalidity - Disclosure of earlier design - American patent as earlier design - Circles specialised in the sector concerned - Informed user - Degree of attention of an informed user - Fashion accessories - Degree of freedom of the designer - Individual character - Different overall impression - Invalidity proceedings))
(2015/C 221/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Senz Technologies BV (Delft (Netherlands)) (represented initially by: W. Hoyng and C. Zeri, and subsequently by W. Hoyng and I. de Bruijn, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: F. Mattina, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Impliva BV (Mijdrecht (Netherlands)) (represented by: C. Gielen and A. Verschuur, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against two decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2012 (Cases R 2453/2010-3 and R 2459/2010-3), in relation to invalidity proceedings between Impliva BV and Senz Technologies BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2012 (Cases R 2453/2010-3 and R 2459/2010-3);










2.


Orders Impliva BV to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of Senz Technologies BV;










3.


Orders Senz Technologies to bear two thirds of its own costs;










4.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2015-05-21
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: Bulgaria, EPSO, France, Italy, Spain, administrative competition, competition (EU), legal profession, linguistics








C_2015166EN.01000501.xml










21.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/5





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
(2015/C 166/03)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






 


EPSO/AD/304/15 — BULGARIAN-LANGUAGE (BG) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)










 


EPSO/AD/305/15 — SPANISH-LANGUAGE (ES) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)










 


EPSO/AD/306/15 — FRENCH-LANGUAGE (FR) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)










 


EPSO/AD/307/15 — ITALIAN-LANGUAGE (IT) LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union
C 166 A of 21 May 2015
.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/