do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7541 — IAG/Aer Lingus) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, economic concentration, holding company, merger control








C_2015314EN.01000101.xml










23.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7541 — IAG/Aer Lingus)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 314/01)
On 14 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32015M7541. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-205/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Schroeder v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Dumping — Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared by the Court of Justice to be invalid — Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the regulation — Action for compensation — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Admissibility — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Duty of care — Causal link)
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, citrus fruit, damages, import (EU), originating product, prepared foodstuff, preserved product








C_2015389EN.01004601.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/46





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Schroeder v Council and Commission
(Case T-205/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Dumping - Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared by the Court of Justice to be invalid - Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the regulation - Action for compensation - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Admissibility - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Duty of care - Causal link))
(2015/C 389/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and initially D. Geradin and N. Tuominen, and subsequently N. Tuominen, lawyers) and European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation for the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35), declared invalid by the judgment of 22 March 2012 in GLS (C-338/10, ECR, EU:C:2012:158)..

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
Case C-503/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial of the Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 23 September 2015 — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, lawyer, proof, restriction on competition, right to justice, unfair terms of contract








C_2015414EN.01001901.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial of the Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 23 September 2015 — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez
(Case C-503/15)
(2015/C 414/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Secretario Judicial of the Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ramón Margarit Panicello

Defendant: Pilar Hernández Martínez

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 34, 35, 207(2), 207(3) and 207(4) of Law 1/2000 [on Civil Procedure], which govern the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees (‘jura de cuentas’), incompatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) in that they preclude the possibility of judicial review? If that is the case:
In the context of the procedure provided for in Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000, is a Secretario Judicial a ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?










2.


Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of Directive [93/13/EEC (2)] and Articles 6(1)(d), 11 and 12 of Directive 2005/29/EC (3) inasmuch as they preclude any examination ex officio of possible unfair terms or unfair commercial practices in contracts concluded between lawyers and natural persons who are acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession?










3.


Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of, and [point 1(q) of the Annex to], Directive [93/13/EEC] inasmuch as they preclude the production of evidence for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees?






(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(3)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Joined Cases T-261/13 and T-86/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Netherlands v Commission (HICP — Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 — Harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (HICP-CT) — Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 — Owner-occupied housing price indices — Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 — Eurostat — Committee procedure — Implementing measures — Regulatory procedure with scrutiny)
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Eurostat, consumer price, harmonisation of prices, price index, tax








C_2015389EN.01003101.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/31





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Netherlands v Commission
(Joined Cases T-261/13 and T-86/14) (1)

((HICP - Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 - Harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (HICP-CT) - Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 - Owner-occupied housing price indices - Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 - Eurostat - Committee procedure - Implementing measures - Regulatory procedure with scrutiny))
(2015/C 389/32)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented, in Case T-261/13, by M. Bulterman, J. Langer and B. Koopman and, in Case T-86/14, by M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

In Case T-261/13, an application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 of 11 February 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 2214/96 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICP): transmission and dissemination of sub-indices of the HICP, as regards establishing harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (OJ 2013 L 41, p. 1) and, in the alternative, an application for annulment of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013 as well as, in Case T-86/14, an application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14) and, in the alternative, an application for annulment of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 93/2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls, in Case T-261/13, Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 119/2013 of 11 February 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 2214/96 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICP): transmission and dissemination of sub-indices of the HICP, as regards establishing harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates;










2.


Annuls, in Case T-86/14, Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.






(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
Case C-506/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-561/13 Spain v Commission
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU programme, Galicia, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, less-favoured agricultural area, rural development








C_2015381EN.01002401.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/24





Appeal brought on 23 September 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-561/13 Spain v Commission
(Case C-506/15 P)
(2015/C 381/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims the court should:






—


In any event, allow the appeal and annul in part the judgment of the General Court, delivered on 15 July 2015, in Case T-561/13.










—


Annul in part the contested decision to the extent that it excludes the expenditure, amounting to EUR 7 57  968,97, incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the context of the Indemnizaciones Compensatorias de las Desventajas Naturales (ICDN) (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps; CANH) aid of Galicia’s 2007-2013 Rural Development programme in respect of ‘natural handicaps (measures 211 and 212)’.










—


In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.





Grounds of Appeal and main arguments


First ground: In the first ground of appeal, the Kingdom of Spain contends that the General Court erred in law in not holding, of its own motion, that there was a substantial procedural defect, in that the European Commission adopted the contested decision outside a reasonable period.

Second ground: In the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law by infringing Articles 10 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (1) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures and Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, by holding that those provisions obliged the Spanish authorities to carry out a census of the animals during the on-the-spot checks.


(1)  OJ L 368, p. 74.

(2)  OJ L 141, p. 18.
Case T-426/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark AINHOA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the mark’s distinctive character)
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015389EN.01003501.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/35





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)
(Case T-426/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark AINHOA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the mark’s distinctive character))
(2015/C 389/36)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and M. L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and A. Schifko, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Cosmetica Cabinas SL (El Masnou, Spain) (represented by: L. Montoya Terán and J.-B. Devaureix, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1642/2012-1), relating to revocation proceedings between L’Oréal and Cosmetica Cabinas SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
Case T-114/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cerafogli v ECB (Appeals — ECB Staff — Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment — Decision of the ECB to close the administrative inquiry initiated following the complaint — Refusal of access to evidence during the administrative procedure — Rejection of a request for an order to produce evidence during the judicial proceedings — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of law)
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative procedure, anti-discriminatory measure, indemnification, psychological harassment, right to justice








C_2015389EN.01002801.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/28





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cerafogli v ECB
(Case T-114/13) (1)

((Appeals - ECB Staff - Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment - Decision of the ECB to close the administrative inquiry initiated following the complaint - Refusal of access to evidence during the administrative procedure - Rejection of a request for an order to produce evidence during the judicial proceedings - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of law))
(2015/C 389/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Feyerbacher, B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-43/10, ECR, EU:F:2012:184), seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-43/10);










2.


Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
Case T-193/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AERONAUTICA — Earlier Community word marks NAUTICA and NAUTICA BLUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015389EN.01004401.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/44





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)
(Case T-193/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AERONAUTICA - Earlier Community word marks NAUTICA and NAUTICA BLUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 389/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cristiano di Thiene SpA (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: F. Fischetti and F. Celluprica, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nautica Apparel, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2014 (Case R 96/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Nautica Apparel, Inc. and Cristiano di Thiene SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cristiano di Thiene SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1724 of 23 September 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Silter (PDO)]
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Lombardy, cheese, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2015252EN.01001101.xml










29.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 252/11








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1724
of 23 September 2015
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Silter (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Silter’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Silter’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Silter’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 September 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 142, 29.4.2015, p. 29.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case T-206/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Hüpeden v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Dumping — Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared invalid by the Court of Justice — Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of the regulation — Action for damages — Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law — Admissibility — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Duty of care — Causal link)
Date: 2015-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, citrus fruit, credit, damages, fruit product, indemnification








C_2015389EN.01004602.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/46





Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Hüpeden v Council and Commission
(Case T-206/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Dumping - Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared invalid by the Court of Justice - Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of the regulation - Action for damages - Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law - Admissibility - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Duty of care - Causal link))
(2015/C 389/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by K. Landry, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by D. Geradin and N. Tuominen, and subsequently by N. Tuominen, lawyers); and European Commission (represented by T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35), declared invalid by the judgment of 22 March 2012 in GLS (C-338/10, ECR, EU:C:2012:158).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.