do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-106/15: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision by OHIM — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medicinal product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015328EN.01000901.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/9





Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
(Case T-106/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision by OHIM - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 328/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: G Farrington, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 (Case R 2387/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear all of the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7658 — Platinum Equity/WFS Global Holding) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, service industry, transport company








C_2015232EN.01000101.xml










16.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7658 — Platinum Equity/WFS Global Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 232/01)
On 8 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 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 32015M7658. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7669 — Lion Capital/Aryzta/Picard Groupe) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distribution business, economic concentration, food industry, holding company, investment company, merger control








C_2015232EN.01001701.xml










16.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7669 — Lion Capital/Aryzta/Picard Groupe)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 232/12)






1.


On 8 July 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Aryzta AG (‘Aryzta’, Switzerland) and Lion Capital LLP (‘Lion Capital’, United Kingdom) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking Picard Groupe SAS (‘Picard’, France) by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Aryzta: holding company active in various food businesses and, through the Aryzta Food Group and its subsidiaries, in the manufacture and supply of bakery products to the retail and food services sectors,
—   for Lion Capital: private equity manager investing in businesses engaged in the production and/or sale of consumer-branded goods,
—   for Picard: retail distribution of frozen food through its own distribution network of specialised shops operating under the Picard brand.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










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.7669 — Lion Capital/Aryzta/Picard Groupe, 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’).
Case T-72/15: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Hippler v Commission
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, copyright, damages, disclosure of information, law of states, transport lines, usufruct








C_2015320EN.01005104.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/51





Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Hippler v Commission
(Case T-72/15) (1)

(2015/C 320/71)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-299/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniele Striani, Mad Management SPRL, Franck Boucher and Others, RFC. Seresien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, dominant position, equal treatment, free movement of capital, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, sport








C_2015354EN.01002901.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/29





Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniele Striani, Mad Management SPRL, Franck Boucher and Others, RFC. Seresien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)
(Case C-299/15) (1)

(2015/C 354/31)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Case T-191/10: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) and Others v Council
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, equal treatment, export price, household article, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence








C_2015389EN.01006501.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/65





Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) and Others v Council
(Case T-191/10) (1)

(2015/C 389/73)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
Case T-207/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Balancing of interests — No urgency)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2015320EN.01003001.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/30





Order of the President of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council
(Case T-207/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Balancing of interests - No urgency))
(2015/C 320/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare QC, M. Lester, J. Pobjoy, Barristers, R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: N. Rouam and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 39, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 39, p. 3), in so far as each applies to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-222/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece)) — Konstantinos Maïstrellis v Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.1 — Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth of a child — National legislation denying the right to such leave for a staff member whose wife does not work — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1)(c) — Working conditions — Direct discrimination)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil servant, gender equality, parental leave, social policy








C_2015302EN.01001001.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/10





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece)) — Konstantinos Maïstrellis v Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton
(Case C-222/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Clause 2.1 - Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth of a child - National legislation denying the right to such leave for a staff member whose wife does not work - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1)(c) - Working conditions - Direct discrimination))
(2015/C 302/12)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konstantinos Maïstrellis

Defendant: Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, and 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, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a civil servant is not entitled to parental leave in a situation where his wife does not work or exercise any profession, unless it is considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife is unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child.


(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case C-378/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, goods and services, principle of proportionality, tax authorities, tax relief








C_2015337EN.01000401.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3
(Case C-378/15)
(2015/C 337/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mercedes Benz Italia SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

Question referred

For the purposes of exercising the right of deduction, are national provisions (in particular Articles 19(5) and 19-bis of Decree 633/1972 of the President of the Republic) and the practice of the national tax authorities which require that reference be had to the composition of a trader’s turnover, including in order to identify so-called incidental transactions, but make no provision for a method of calculation that is based on [both] the composition and the actual destination of the acquisitions and that objectively reflects the actual share of the expenditure attributable to each of the — taxed and untaxed — activities engaged in by the taxpayer incompatible with an interpretation of Articles 168, 173, 174 and 175 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) which is guided by the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and neutrality, as set out in Community law?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-631/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Roland SE v OHIM — Louboutin (Nuance of red on the sole of a shoe) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe — Earlier international figurative mark my SHOES — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015302EN.01005301.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/53





Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Roland SE v OHIM — Louboutin (Nuance of red on the sole of a shoe)
(Case T-631/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe - Earlier international figurative mark my SHOES - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 302/68)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and O. Rauscher, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Christian Louboutin (Paris, France) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2014 (Case R 1591/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Roland SE and Christian Louboutin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Roland SE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
Case C-255/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Articles 3 and 9 — Obligation to declare — Infringement — Penalties — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, customs formalities, free movement of capital








C_2015302EN.01001002.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
(Case C-255/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Articles 3 and 9 - Obligation to declare - Infringement - Penalties - Proportionality))
(2015/C 302/13)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Robert Michal Chmielewski

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to penalise a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, imposes payment of an administrative fine, the amount of which corresponds to 60 % of the amount of undeclared cash, where that sum is more than EUR 50  000.


(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Action brought on 16 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-18/15)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Iceland, maritime transport, national implementing measure








C_2015357EN.01000401.xml










29.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/4





Action brought on 16 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-18/15)
(2015/C 357/04)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56 l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than on 18 February 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC), as referred to at point 56 l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Case C-39/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — proceedings brought by Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Sale of agricultural land by public authorities — National provision allowing the competent authorities to object to the sale of agricultural land where the price offered is considered ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the market value — Advantage granted to certain undertakings or for the production of certain goods — Private investor test — Determination of the ‘market value’)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, agricultural land, price of farm land, selling price








C_2015302EN.01000501.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/5





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — proceedings brought by Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG)
(Case C-39/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Sale of agricultural land by public authorities - National provision allowing the competent authorities to object to the sale of agricultural land where the price offered is considered ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the market value - Advantage granted to certain undertakings or for the production of certain goods - Private investor test - Determination of the ‘market value’))
(2015/C 302/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party to the main proceedings

Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG)

Joined parties: Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erbs, Landkreis Jerichower Land

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of safeguarding the interests of agricultural holdings, effectively prohibits an emanation of the State from selling agricultural land to the highest bidder in a public call for tenders, where the competent local authority considers that his bid is grossly disproportionate to the estimated value of that land, cannot be classified as ‘State aid’, provided that the application of that rule results in a price which is as close as possible to the market value of the agricultural land concerned, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.