do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-481/15: Action brought on 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air safety, civil aviation, infringement of EU law, safety standard








C_2015371EN.01001601.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/16





Action brought on 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-481/15)
(2015/C 371/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 (1) and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation;










—


order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:
Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation require each Member State to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures.
Germany fails to comply with that requirement.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (OJ 2008 L 97, p. 72), as amended by Commission Regulation No 18/2010 of 8 January 2010 (OJ 2010 L 7, p. 3).
Case T-608/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015354EN.01003701.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/37





Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
(Case T-608/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 354/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 121/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
Case T-346/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development measures — Agri-environment — Adequate checks — Lump-sum financial corrections)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, agri-environmental plan, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, financial aid, rural development








C_2015346EN.01002202.xml










19.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/22





Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-346/13) (1)

((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development measures - Agri-environment - Adequate checks - Lump-sum financial corrections))
(2015/C 346/25)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented initially by: I.-K. Chalkias, X. Basakou and A.-E. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by: A.-E. Vasilopoulou, G. Kanellopoulos and O. Tsirkinidou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD, in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 2 % on the Hellenic Republic) in respect of the ‘Organic farming’ and ‘Organic livestock’ agri-environment sub-measures;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.
Case C-487/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016191EN.01000301.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/3





Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM

(Case C-487/15 P)
(2016/C 191/04)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: J. Krenzel, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Redrock Construction s.r.o.
By order of 25 February 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.
Case C-266/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Point (1) of Article 2 — Concept of ‘working time’ — Workers who are not assigned a fixed or habitual place of work — Time spent travelling between the workers’ homes and the premises of the first and last customers)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, interpretation of the law, social policy, working time, workplace








C_2015363EN.01001601.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/16





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA
(Case C-266/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Point (1) of Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Workers who are not assigned a fixed or habitual place of work - Time spent travelling between the workers’ homes and the premises of the first and last customers))
(2015/C 363/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.)

Defendants: Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point (1) of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which workers do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the time spent by those workers travelling each day between their homes and the premises of the first and last customers designated by their employer constitutes ‘working time’, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer — Technical examination — Distinctiveness — Test guidelines — Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: discretionary power, pip fruit, plant breeding, plant variety right, technical specification








C_2015354EN.01003101.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/31





Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)
(Joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14) (1)

((Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the apple variety Gala Schnitzer - Technical examination - Distinctiveness - Test guidelines - Discretion enjoyed by the President of the CPVO))
(2015/C 354/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervening before the General Court: Brookfield New Zealand Limited (Havelock North, New Zealand); and Elaris SNC (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Eller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against two decisions of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 20 September 2013 (Cases A 004/2007 and A 003/2007) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Schniga Srl to pay the costs incurred by Brookfield New Zealand Limited and by Elaris SNC and to pay its own costs. The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case C-687/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 — Validity — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(7)(a) — Normal value — Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country — Selection of the appropriate third country — Duty of care — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Sampling)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, floor coverings, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence








C_2015363EN.01000502.xml










3.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg
(Case C-687/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(a) - Normal value - Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country - Selection of the appropriate third country - Duty of care - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Sampling))
(2015/C 363/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China.


(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
Case T-30/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015354EN.01003001.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/30





Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION)
(Case T-30/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 354/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger and M. Zöbisch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2013 (Case R 1749/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
Case T-526/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (Handbags) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing handbags — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, leather








C_2015346EN.01002401.xml










19.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/24





Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (Handbags)
(Case T-526/13) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing handbags - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 346/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Decker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2013 (Case R 208/2012-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG and Yves Saint Laurent SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those incurred by Yves Saint Laurent SAS in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7532 — Interseroh/ALSO Deutschland/ALSO bringback) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronics industry, information technology industry, merger control, telecommunications, used goods, waste management, wholesale trade








C_2015298EN.01000301.xml










10.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7532 — Interseroh/ALSO Deutschland/ALSO bringback)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 298/03)






1.


On 31 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 Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH (‘Interseroh’, Germany), belonging to the ALBA Group (‘ALBA’, Germany), and Impaso Online Service GmbH (‘Impaso’, Germany), belonging to the ALSO Holding AG (‘ALSO’, Switzerland), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of ALSO bringback GmbH (‘ALSO bringback’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares. ALSO bringback is currently under the sole control of Impaso.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ALBA Group (Interseroh): provision of recycling and environmental services and supply of raw materials,
—   for ALSO (Impaso): wholesale for products, solutions and services in IT, telecommunications and consumer electronics in Europe,
—   for ALSO bringback: the JV shall be active in trading with used information and communication equipment, consumer electronics and other electronic equipment.










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.7532 — Interseroh/ALSO Deutschland/ALSO bringback, 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-572/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015354EN.01003602.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/36





Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA)
(Case T-572/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 354/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 527/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.