do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-471/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, telecommunications industry








C_2015337EN.01003701.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/37





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case T-471/15)
(2015/C 337/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-457/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Fakro v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera)
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015328EN.01003001.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/30





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Fakro v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera)
(Case T-457/15)
(2015/C 328/27)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Fakro Sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘climaVera’ — Community trade mark No 1 152 1366

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 2095/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision in its entirety and refer the case back to OHIM for reconsideration;










—


award the costs of the proceedings and representation to the applicant in accordance with the prescribed rules.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015263EN.01000101.xml










11.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 August 2015
(2015/C 263/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0960




JPY


Japanese yen


136,67




DKK


Danish krone


7,4619




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70710




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5958




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0800




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0260




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,034




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,27




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1968




RON


Romanian leu


4,4118




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0591




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4884




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4392




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4968




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6668




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5191




KRW


South Korean won


1 275,09




ZAR


South African rand


13,9475




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8058




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5310




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 823,56




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3144




PHP


Philippine peso


50,213




RUB


Russian rouble


70,4100




THB


Thai baht


38,513




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8559




MXN


Mexican peso


17,7623




INR


Indian rupee


70,0028






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-469/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Bena Properties v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, real estate business, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015337EN.01003601.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/36





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Bena Properties v Council
(Case T-469/15)
(2015/C 337/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7720 — Mahindra World City Developers/Sumitomo/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property development, property leasing, provision of services, real estate business








C_2015263EN.01000301.xml










11.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7720 — Mahindra World City Developers/Sumitomo/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 263/03)






1.


On 3 August 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 Mahindra World City Developers Limited (‘Mahindra World City Developers’, India), belonging to the Mahindra Group of companies, and Sumitomo Corporation (‘Sumitomo’, Japan) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the newly created joint venture Mahindra Industrial Park Chennai Limited.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Mahindra World City Developers: land development for industrial, commercial and residential use;
—   for Sumitomo: provision of services and products in a variety of business sectors, including trading of metal products, transportation and construction systems, environment and infrastructure, chemicals and electronics, media, networks and lifestyle related goods, mineral resources, energy and development, marketing, sales and management of industrial parks.










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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










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.7720 — Mahindra World City Developers/Sumitomo/JV, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-463/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, investment company, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2015337EN.01003201.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/32





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-463/15)
(2015/C 337/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-466/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, human rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2015337EN.01003401.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/34





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-466/15)
(2015/C 337/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-468/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Souruh v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, building industry, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015337EN.01003501.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/35





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-468/15)
(2015/C 337/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-467/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015337EN.01003402.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/34





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council
(Case T-467/15)
(2015/C 337/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7652 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich/Valida Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, merger control, pension scheme








C_2015263EN.01000201.xml










11.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7652 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich/Valida Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 263/02)






1.


On 3 August 2015 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (‘RZB’, Austria) acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Valida Holding AG (‘Valida’, Austria) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


RZB is the central institution of the Raiffeisen Banking Group Austria. It is active in financial services and also provides a number of services to its members (the cooperative). Its activities focus on Austria, but is also present in Central and Eastern Europe through its shareholding in Raiffeisen Bank International, a banking group.










—


Valida is active in providing company pension plans in Austria, through offering staff pension funds and dismissal pay funds.














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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










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.7652 — Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich/Valida Holding, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-470/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Cham v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, investment company, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015337EN.01003602.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/36





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Cham v Council
(Case T-470/15)
(2015/C 337/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Cham Holding (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-464/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Othman v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, human rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2015337EN.01003301.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/33





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Othman v Council
(Case T-464/15)
(2015/C 337/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-465/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, human rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2015337EN.01003302.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/33





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-465/15)
(2015/C 337/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.