do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-400/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Repsol YPF, SA (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Application for registration of a Community figurative mark — Word element ‘basic’ — Earlier Community figurative mark — Word element ‘BASIC’ — Opposition by the proprietor of that mark — Partial refusal of registration — Concepts of ‘distribution services’ and of ‘retail and wholesale services’ — Scope)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, distribution business, goods and services, packaging, provision of services, registered trade mark, retail trade, storage, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2015320EN.01001001.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/10





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Repsol YPF, SA
(Case C-400/14 P) (1)

((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Application for registration of a Community figurative mark - Word element ‘basic’ - Earlier Community figurative mark - Word element ‘BASIC’ - Opposition by the proprietor of that mark - Partial refusal of registration - Concepts of ‘distribution services’ and of ‘retail and wholesale services’ - Scope))
(2015/C 320/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (represented by: D. Altenburg and T. Haug, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Repsol YPF, SA (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, abogado)

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Case C-88/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 — Article 1(1) and (4) — Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 — Article 1(4)(f) — Article 290 TFEU — Suspension of exemption from the visa requirement — Insertion of a footnote — Amendment of the legislative act)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, external border of the EU, foreign national








C_2015302EN.01000502.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/5





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
(Case C-88/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 - Article 1(1) and (4) - Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 - Article 1(4)(f) - Article 290 TFEU - Suspension of exemption from the visa requirement - Insertion of a footnote - Amendment of the legislative act))
(2015/C 302/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, B. Martenczuk and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, A. Troupiotis and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents)
Council of the European Union (represented by K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Škeřík, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Case C-369/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH v Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Waste electrical and electronic equipment — Directive 2002/96/EC — Articles 2(1) and 3(a) and Annexes I A and I B — Directive 2012/19/EU — Articles 2(1)(a), 2(3)(b) and 3(1)(a) and (b), and Annexes I and II — Concepts of ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ and ‘electrical and electronic tools’ — Garage-door operating devices)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical equipment, electronic equipment, electronic waste, waste recycling








C_2015311EN.01001102.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH v Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-369/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Waste electrical and electronic equipment - Directive 2002/96/EC - Articles 2(1) and 3(a) and Annexes I A and I B - Directive 2012/19/EU - Articles 2(1)(a), 2(3)(b) and 3(1)(a) and (b), and Annexes I and II - Concepts of ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ and ‘electrical and electronic tools’ - Garage-door operating devices))
(2015/C 311/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH

Defendant: Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 3(a) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and Annexes I A, point 6, and I B, point 6, thereto, and Article 2(1)(a) and 2(3)(b), and Article 3(1)(a) and (b), of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and Annexes I, point 6, and II, point 6, thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that garage-door operating devices, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are dependent on an electric current of approximately 220 to 240 volts to work properly, designed to be incorporated into the building structure together with the relevant garage door and can at any time be dismantled, re-installed and/or added to that structure, fall within the scope of Directive 2002/96 and, during the transitional period fixed in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2012/19, that of the latter directive.


(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015232EN.01000601.xml










16.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 July 2015
(2015/C 232/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1009




JPY


Japanese yen


135,95




DKK


Danish krone


7,4629




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70450




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3570




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0439




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9405




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,078




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,77




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1290




RON


Romanian leu


4,4238




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9112




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4753




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4030




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5330




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6445




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4999




KRW


South Korean won


1 258,96




ZAR


South African rand


13,5986




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8357




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5780




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 681,95




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1867




PHP


Philippine peso


49,818




RUB


Russian rouble


62,4150




THB


Thai baht


37,514




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4606




MXN


Mexican peso


17,2346




INR


Indian rupee


69,8218






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-615/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(1)(b) — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Article 8 — Exception to right of access — Protection of personal data — Concept of ‘Personal data’ — Conditions for transfer of personal data — Names of authors of each comment on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) draft guidance relating to scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market — Refusal of access)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, data protection, derogation from EU law, market approval, personal data, plant health product, provision of documents








C_2015311EN.01000501.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Commission
(Case C-615/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(1)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Article 8 - Exception to right of access - Protection of personal data - Concept of ‘Personal data’ - Conditions for transfer of personal data - Names of authors of each comment on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) draft guidance relating to scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market - Refusal of access))
(2015/C 311/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and C. Pintado, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by B. Martenczuk and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by A. Buchta and M. Pérez Asinari, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA (T-214/11, EU:T:2013:483);










2)


Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 12 December 2011;










3)


Orders the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) in the appeal and in the proceedings at first instance;










4)


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the appeal and the proceedings at first instance;










5)


Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Case C-184/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — A v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 3(c) and (d) — Matter relating to maintenance in respect of minor children concurrent with the parents’ separation proceedings, brought in a Member State other than that in which the children are habitually resident)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dependant, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, maintenance obligation, parental responsibility, residence, territorial jurisdiction








C_2015302EN.01000802.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/8





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — A v B
(Case C-184/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(c) and (d) - Matter relating to maintenance in respect of minor children concurrent with the parents’ separation proceedings, brought in a Member State other than that in which the children are habitually resident))
(2015/C 302/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be understood as meaning that, in the event that a court of a Member State is seized of proceedings involving the separation or dissolution of a marital link between the parents of a minor child and a court of another Member State is seized of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility involving that same child, an application relating to maintenance concerning that child is ancillary only to the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
Case C-653/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2006/12/EC — Articles 4 and 5 — Waste management — Region of Campania — Judgment of the Court — Finding of a failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply in full with a judgment of the Court — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Campania, environmental protection, periodic penalty payment, sanction (EU), waste management








C_2015311EN.01000601.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-653/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2006/12/EC - Articles 4 and 5 - Waste management - Region of Campania - Judgment of the Court - Finding of a failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to comply in full with a judgment of the Court - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum payment))
(2015/C 311/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU,










2.


orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 1 20  000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115), from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115) is complied with,










3.


orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission a lump sum, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, of EUR 20 million,










4.


orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
Case C-507/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — P v M (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of reasonable doubt — Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 16(1)(a) — Determination of the time at which a court is seised — Request to stay the proceedings — No effect)
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, jurisdiction, parental responsibility








C_2015320EN.01001201.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/12





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — P v M
(Case C-507/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Absence of reasonable doubt - Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 16(1)(a) - Determination of the time at which a court is seised - Request to stay the proceedings - No effect))
(2015/C 320/16)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: P

Defendant: M

Operative part of the order

Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a court is deemed to be seised at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with that court, even where the proceedings have in the meantime been stayed at the initiative of the applicant who brought them, without those proceedings having been notified to the defendant or that defendant having had knowledge of them or having intervened in them in any way, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent.


(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Notification of the Spanish Government pursuant to articles 10(2) and 14 of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Gas Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas regarding the designation of ENAGAS TRANSPORTE, S.A.U. as Transmission System Operator and Independent System Operator in Spain
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Spain
Subjects: Spain, domestic market, gas pipeline, natural gas, private sector, public contract








C_2015232EN.01001101.xml










16.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/11





Notification of the Spanish Government pursuant to articles 10(2) and 14 of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (‘Gas Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas regarding the designation of ENAGAS TRANSPORTE, S.A.U. as Transmission System Operator and Independent System Operator in Spain
(2015/C 232/07)
Following the Spanish regulatory authority's final decisions of 23 October 2014 regarding the certification of ENAGAS TRANSPORTE, S.A.U. as Ownership Unbundled Transmission System Operator (article 9 of the Gas Directive), of 20 January 2015 regarding the certification of ENAGAS TRANSPORTE, S.A.U. as Independent System Operator (article 14 of the Gas Directive) of the transmission system of ENAGAS TRANSPORTE DEL NORTE S.L. and of 20 January 2015 regarding the certification of ENAGAS TRANSPORTE, S.A.U. as Independent System Operator (article 14 of the Gas Directive) of the transmission system of PLANTA DE REGASIFICACIÓN DE SAGUNTO S.A., Spain has notified to the Commission the official approval and designation of this company as a Transmission System Operator and Independent System Operator operating in Spain in accordance with articles 10 and 14 of the Gas Directive.
Any additional information can be obtained at the following address:





Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism




International Relations and Co-operation




Under-Secretariat for Industry, Energy and Tourism




Paseo de la Castellana, 160




28046 Madrid




ESPAÑA




Tel. +34 913494180




Internet: www.minetur.gob.es
Case C-580/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 8(3)(e) — Sale of counterfeit goods — Right to information in the context of proceedings for infringement of an intellectual property right — Legislation of a Member State which allows banking institutions to refuse a request for information relating to a bank account (banking secrecy))
Date: 2015-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, banking secrecy, industrial counterfeiting, right to information








C_2015302EN.01000401.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/4





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg
(Case C-580/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 8(3)(e) - Sale of counterfeit goods - Right to information in the context of proceedings for infringement of an intellectual property right - Legislation of a Member State which allows banking institutions to refuse a request for information relating to a bank account (banking secrecy)))
(2015/C 302/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendant: Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide, pursuant to Article 8(1)(c) of that directive, information concerning the name and address of an account holder.


(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.