do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-388/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015381EN.01004502.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/45





Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)
(Case T-388/15)
(2015/C 381/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘JN-JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 410 041

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1353/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Office:






—


to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;










—


to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-465/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — European automotive glass market — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information the Commission intends to publish — Obligation to state reasons — Confidentiality — Obligation of professional secrecy — Leniency programme — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative procedure, competition, confidentiality, equal treatment, glass industry, industrial secret, motor vehicle industry








C_2015302EN.01004301.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/43





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission
(Case T-465/12) (1)

((Competition - Administrative procedure - European automotive glass market - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information the Commission intends to publish - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Obligation of professional secrecy - Leniency programme - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
(2015/C 302/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: AGC Glass Europe (Brussels, Belgium); AGC Automotive Europe SA, (Fleurus, Belgium); AGC France SAS (Boussois, France); AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl (Cuneo, Italy); AGC Glass UK Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom); AGC Glass Germany GmbH (Wegberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, J. Blockx, P. Niggemann, A. Burckett St Laurent, lawyers, and S. Ryan, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, G. Meessen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 5719 final of 6 August 2012 on the rejection of a request for confidential treatment submitted by AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH, under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
Case T-398/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Fapricela v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, competition, exchange of information, fine, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, steel, trade information








C_2015302EN.01003501.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/35





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Fapricela v Commission
(Case T-398/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Cooperation during the administrative procedure))
(2015/C 302/44)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (Ançã, Portugal) (represented initially by M. Gorjão-Henriques and S. Roux, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Guerreiro, R. Lopes and S. Alberto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011 in so far as it finds that Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA infringed Article 101(1) TFEU not only by participating in an infringement of that provision in the Iberian market but also by participating in a cartel covering the internal market and subsequently within the European Economic Area (EEA), and imposed on it a fine of EUR 8 8 74  000;










2.


Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria at EUR 8 8 74  000;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7620 — FAM/Fanopi/Nefab) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, foundation, joint ownership, land transport, merger control, packaging, provision of services








C_2015231EN.01000101.xml










15.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7620 — FAM/Fanopi/Nefab)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 231/01)
On 6 July 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 32015M7620. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-375/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 July 2015 — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, access to information, bank, disclosure of information, electronic banking, electronic mail, information medium, provision of services








C_2015354EN.01001201.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 July 2015 — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
(Case C-375/15)
(2015/C 354/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG

Respondent: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC (1) on payment services in the internal market (‘the Payment Services Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that information (in electronic format) transmitted by the bank to the e-mail inbox of the customer as part of online banking (eBanking), so that the customer can retrieve this information by clicking on it after logging in to the eBanking website, has been provided on a durable medium?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of the Payment Services Directive to be interpreted as meaning that in such a case






(a)


the information from the bank is indeed provided on a durable medium, but not notified to the customer, merely made accessible to him, or










(b)


all that happens is that the information is made accessible without the use of a durable medium?










(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).
Case T-324/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark ECOSE TECHNOLOGY — Earlier national word mark ECOSEC FACHADAS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building insulation, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015302EN.01004201.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/42





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY)
(Case T-324/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark ECOSE TECHNOLOGY - Earlier national word mark ECOSEC FACHADAS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 302/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by M. Montañá, S Sebé and I. Carulla, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2012 (Cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL and Knauf Insulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2012 (Cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the action brought by Knauf Insulation Technology and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division;










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology;










3.


Orders Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology.






(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1175 of 15 July 2015 amending Decision 2006/473/EC as regards the recognition of the magisterial district of Gordonia in South Africa as being free from Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus) (notified under document C(2015) 4749)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: South Africa, citrus fruit, import (EU), plant disease, plant health control








L_2015189EN.01003901.xml










17.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 189/39








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2015/1175
of 15 July 2015
         
amending Decision 2006/473/EC as regards the recognition of the magisterial district of Gordonia in South Africa as being free from Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus)


(notified under document C(2015) 4749)




THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular point 16.4 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV thereto,

Whereas:







(1)


By Commission Decision 2006/473/EC (2), certain magisterial districts of the province of Northern Cape of South Africa are recognised as being free from Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus).












(2)


On the basis of the information submitted by South Africa as regards the magisterial district of Gordonia, in the Northern Cape province, and the absence of interceptions of Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus) on citrus fruit originating in that area, it appears that the magisterial district of Gordonia is free from that harmful organism. Therefore, it is appropriate to recognise it as being free from Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus).












(3)


Decision 2006/473/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Point (a) of Article 3(2) of Decision 2006/473/EC is replaced by the following:






‘(a)


South Africa: Western Cape; Northern Cape: magisterial districts of Gordonia, Hartswater and Warrenton;’.






Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 15 July 2015.


For the Commission

Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Decision 2006/473/EC of 5 July 2006 recognising certain third countries and certain areas of third countries as being free from Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to Citrus), Cercospora angolensis Carv. et Mendes and Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus) (OJ L 187, 8.7.2006, p. 35).
Case T-436/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — HIT Groep v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Reasonable time)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, competition, exchange of information, fine, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, steel, subsidiary, trade information








C_2015302EN.01004001.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/40





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — HIT Groep v Commission
(Case T-436/10) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Reasonable time))
(2015/C 302/50)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: HIT Groep BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented initially by G. van der Wal, G. Oosterhuis and H. Albers, and subsequently by G. van der Wal and G. Oosterhuis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders HIT Groep BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Case T-385/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — Loops v OHIM (Shape of a toothbrush)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015302EN.01006501.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/65





Action brought on 15 July 2015 — Loops v OHIM (Shape of a toothbrush)
(Case T-385/15)
(2015/C 302/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Loops, LLC (Ferndale, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the tridimensional mark (Shape of a toothbrush) — Application for registration No 1 187 189

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 1917/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


admit the publication in the classes requested of the international registration number 1 187 198;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs which were due within the course of the Appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-82/14: Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, aid to disaster victims, basis of tax assessment, earthquake, tax harmonisation, tax relief








C_2015320EN.01000302.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/3





Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile
(Case C-82/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC))
(2015/C 320/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Nuova Invincibile

Operative part of the order

Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that of Article 9(17) of the Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 on provisions for the preparation of the annual and multiannual State budget (2003 Finance Law), which, having regard to an earthquake that struck the provinces of Catania, Ragusa and Syracuse, provides for a reduction, for the benefit of those persons affected, of 90 % of the value added tax which would otherwise be payable for the years of 1990 to 1992, inter alia by conferring an entitlement to reimbursement, in that proportion, of the sums already paid in respect of value added tax, in so far as that provision does not comply with the requirements of the principle of fiscal neutrality, and does not allow for the collection in full of value added tax payable in the territory of Italy.


(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
Case T-314/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Portugal v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira (Port of Caniçal) — Reduction of financial assistance — Non-compliance with the time-limit for adopting a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements)
Date: 2015-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Madeira, financial aid, ports policy








C_2015302EN.01004602.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/46





Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-314/13) (1)

((Cohesion Fund - Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira (Port of Caniçal) - Reduction of financial assistance - Non-compliance with the time-limit for adopting a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements))
(2015/C 302/59)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, M. Gorjão-Henriques and J. da Silva Sampaio, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 1870 final of 27 March 2013 reducing the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the Portuguese Republic for the project ‘Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira (Portugal).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C (2013) 1870 final of 27 March 2013 reducing the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the Portuguese Republic for the project ‘Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira (Portugal);










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.