do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-359/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, cosmetic product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015294EN.01008101.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/81






Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
(Case T-359/15)
(2015/C 294/97)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nina Ricci SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 April 2015 in Case R 1021/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in part;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-329/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2015 — ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, environmental policy, environmental protection, fine








C_2015320EN.01001502.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2015 — ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
(Case C-329/15)
(2015/C 320/22)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ENEA S.A. w Poznaniu

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase electrical energy produced in combination with the production of heat, as laid down in Article 9a(8) of the Law of 10 April 1997 on energy law, in the version in force in 2006, adopted on the basis of Article 1, point 13, of the Law of 4 March 2005 amending the Law on energy law and the Law on environmental protection law (Dz.U. 2005, No 62, item 552), constitutes State aid?










2.


In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1, must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that an energy undertaking treated as an emanation of a Member State which was obliged to fulfil the obligation classified as State aid may rely on infringement of that provision in proceedings before a national court?










3.


In the event of an affirmative answer to Questions 1 and 2, must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the conflict of the obligation arising from national law with Article 107 TFEU rules out the possibility of imposing a financial penalty on an undertaking which has failed to fulfil that obligation?
Case T-361/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, confectionery product, dairy ice cream, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015294EN.01008102.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/81






Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)
(Case T-361/15)
(2015/C 294/98)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Choice sp. z o.o. (Legnica, Poland) (represented by: T. Mielke, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Choice chocolate & ice cream’ — Application for registration No 1 2 6 44  423
         

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 2221/2014-5

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 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Special Report No 6/2015 ‘The integrity and implementation of the EU ETS’
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Kyoto Protocol, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2015218EN.01000401.xml










3.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/4





Special Report No 6/2015 ‘The integrity and implementation of the EU ETS’
(2015/C 218/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 6/2015 ‘The integrity and implementation of the EU ETS’ 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7584 — International Chemical Investors/INEOS Chlorovinyls Business) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2015218EN.01000101.xml










3.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7584 — International Chemical Investors/INEOS Chlorovinyls Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 218/01)
On 9 June 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 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 32015M7584. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015218EN.01000301.xml










3.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 July 2015
(2015/C 218/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1066




JPY


Japanese yen


136,82




DKK


Danish krone


7,4604




GBP


Pound sterling


0,71030




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3480




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0507




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7950




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,265




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,85




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1927




RON


Romanian leu


4,4766




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9925




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4573




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3963




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5778




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6597




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4963




KRW


South Korean won


1 245,07




ZAR


South African rand


13,6706




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8659




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5975




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 752,20




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1777




PHP


Philippine peso


49,987




RUB


Russian rouble


61,6618




THB


Thai baht


37,420




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4850




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5086




INR


Indian rupee


70,2829






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-98/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, allowances and expenses, damages, pay rise








C_2015294EN.01008601.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/86






Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-98/15)
(2015/C 294/105)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 18 July 2014, which confirmed the applicant in his post as Head of Unit, in so far as that decision does not provide for retroactive recognition of the status of Head of Unit and the retroactive award of the increase in basic salary for his post (the management allowance), and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul Article 2 of the decision of 18 July 2014, insofar as it provides that the increase in basic salary relating to the appointment of the applicant as Head of Unit will take effect only after a period of nine months;










—


Annul the decision of 20 March 2015, received on 24 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 August 2014;










—


Order compensation for the material and financial damage to the applicant;










—


In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/868 of 26 May 2015 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2,4,5-T, barban, binapacryl, bromophos-ethyl, camphechlor (toxaphene), chlorbufam, chloroxuron, chlozolinate, DNOC, di-allate, dinoseb, dinoterb, dioxathion, ethylene oxide, fentin acetate, fentin hydroxide, flucycloxuron, flucythrinate, formothion, mecarbam, methacrifos, monolinuron, phenothrin, propham, pyrazophos, quinalphos, resmethrin, tecnazene and vinclozolin in or on certain products (OJ L 145, 10.6.2015)
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, animal product, chemical product, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue, plant health control




L_2015174EN.01004301.xml










3.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 174/43







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/868 of 26 May 2015 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2,4,5-T, barban, binapacryl, bromophos-ethyl, camphechlor (toxaphene), chlorbufam, chloroxuron, chlozolinate, DNOC, di-allate, dinoseb, dinoterb, dioxathion, ethylene oxide, fentin acetate, fentin hydroxide, flucycloxuron, flucythrinate, formothion, mecarbam, methacrifos, monolinuron, phenothrin, propham, pyrazophos, quinalphos, resmethrin, tecnazene and vinclozolin in or on certain products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 145 of 10 June 2015
)


On page 2, Article 2:
for:


‘Article 2
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were lawfully produced before 30 June 2015.’,


read:


‘Article 2
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were lawfully produced before 30 December 2015.’.
Case T-358/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, cosmetic product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015294EN.01008001.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/80






Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
(Case T-358/15)
(2015/C 294/96)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 1020/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in part;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-249/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — JT v OHIM — Carrasco Pirard and others (QUILAPAYÚN)
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, artistic profession, music, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015337EN.01001301.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/13





Action brought on 3 July 2015 — JT v OHIM — Carrasco Pirard and others (QUILAPAYÚN)
(Case T-249/15)
(2015/C 337/16)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: JT (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard (Santiago, Chile), Guillermo García Campos (Brussels, Belgium), Luis Hernán Gómez Larenas (Paris, France), Hugo Lagos Vásquez (Taverny, France), Ismael Oddo Méndez (Santiago, Chile), Carlos Quezada Salas (Colombes, France), Ricardo Venegas Carhart (Santiago, Chile), Sebastián Quezada (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘QUILAPAYÚN’ — Application for registration No 9 267 287

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2015 in Case R 354/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; and










—


reject the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘QUILAPAYÚN’ for goods and services in Class 9 and Class 41 brought before OHIM by the applicants Eduardo Carrasco Pirard, Guillermo García Campos, Luis Hernán Gómez Larenas, Hugo Lagos Vásquez, Ismael Oddo Méndez, Carlos Quezada Salas, Ricardo Venegas Carhart and Sebastián Quezada on 16 September 2010.





Plea in law

Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) and 2(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 read in conjunction with Article 6bis(1) of the Paris Convention.
Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066, concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: North Korea, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2015218EN.01000201.xml










3.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/2





Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066, concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(2015/C 218/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entity that appear in Annex II to Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066 (2), concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entity that appear in the abovementioned Annex should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The grounds for the listing of the persons and entity concerned appear in the relevant entries in that Annex.
The attention of the persons and entity concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Council Regulation (CE) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (3), in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 8 of the Regulation).
The persons and entity concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The attention of the persons and entity concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 52.

(2)  OJ L 174, 3.7.2015, p. 25.

(3)  OJ L 88, 29.3.2007, p. 1.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, North Sea, Sweden, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015218EN.01000501.xml










3.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/5





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 218/05)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


22.6.2015




Duration


22.6.2015-31.12.2015




Member State


Sweden




Stock or Group of stocks


SOL/3A/BCD




Species


Common Sole (solea solea)




Zone


IIIa; Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


04/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-335/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2015 — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero
Date: 2015-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: maternity benefit, maternity leave








C_2015294EN.01004101.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/41






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2015 — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero
(Case C-335/15)
(2015/C 294/53)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

Question referred







1.


Do Article 11, first paragraph, subparagraphs 1, 2(b) and (3), and the last and penultimate recitals in the preamble to Council Directive 92/85/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 and Article 157(1), (2) and (4) TFEU (formerly Article 141(1), (2) and (4) EC), Article 158 TFEU (formerly Article 142 EC), where it requires that ‘Member States shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalence between paid holiday schemes’, Articles 2(2)(c) and 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, read together, and Article 15 and recitals 23 and 24 in the preamble to that directive, and, finally, Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), preclude national legislation which, by virtue of Article 3(1) of Law No 27 of 19 February 1981, in the version prior to the amendment made by Article 1(325) of Law No 311 of 30 December 2004, does not allow payment of the allowance provided for therein for periods of compulsory maternity leave prior to 1 January 2005?






(1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, pp. 1-7).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, pp. 23-36).