do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7740 — Apollo Management/CDG) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2015322EN.01000201.xml










30.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7740 — Apollo Management/CDG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 322/03)
On 24 September 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 the 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 32015M7740. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-578/15: Action brought on 30 September 2015 — Azur Space Solar Power v OHIM (Representation of a solar cell)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, photovoltaic cell, registered trade mark, solar collector, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01003301.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/33





Action brought on 30 September 2015 — Azur Space Solar Power v OHIM (Representation of a solar cell)
(Case T-578/15)
(2015/C 414/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of a figurative mark (Representation of a solar cell) — International registration No 1 201 973

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2015 in Case R 2780/2014-4

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the refusal of OHIM;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-369/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark SEQUOIA CAPITAL — Earlier Community word mark SEQUOIA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, investment company, registered trade mark, technology, trade-mark law








C_2015389EN.01005001.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/50





Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)
(Case T-369/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SEQUOIA CAPITAL - Earlier Community word mark SEQUOIA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion))
(2015/C 389/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sequoia Capital Operations LLC (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: F. Delord, A. Rendle, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sequoia Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2014 (Case R 1457/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Sequoia Capital LLP and Sequoia Capital Operations LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sequoia Capital Operations LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-136/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASmALI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BASmALI — Earlier non-registered trade mark or earlier sign BASMATI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, rice, trade-mark law








C_2015389EN.01004301.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/43





Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASmALI)
(Case T-136/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BASmALI - Earlier non-registered trade mark or earlier sign BASMATI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 389/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tilda Riceland Private Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, N. Urwin and D. Sills, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Siam Grains Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2013 (Case R 1086/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tilda Riceland Private Ltd and Siam Grains Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 December 2013 (Case R 1086/2012-4);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tilda Riceland Private Ltd.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015322EN.01000301.xml










30.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 September 2015
(2015/C 322/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1204




JPY


Japanese yen


134,38




DKK


Danish krone


7,4607




GBP


Pound sterling


0,73910




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4462




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0901




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5220




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,208




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,75




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2356




RON


Romanian leu


4,4223




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4030




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6009




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5000




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6831




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7616




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6004




KRW


South Korean won


1 338,63




ZAR


South African rand


15,5812




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1316




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6535




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 442,26




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9835




PHP


Philippine peso


52,480




RUB


Russian rouble


73,4567




THB


Thai baht


40,832




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5834




MXN


Mexican peso


19,0160




INR


Indian rupee


73,9411






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-128/15: Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2015414EN.01004302.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/43





Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
(Case F-128/15)
(2015/C 414/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of either the proposal for the calculation, or the final calculation, of the number of years of pensionable service granted in the European Union pension scheme and corresponding to the applicants’ pension rights, acquired under national schemes, which they wish to transfer into the European Union pension scheme, pursuant to the new general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decisions of 30 April 2015, of 1 July 2015 and of 6 July 2015 fixing the amount credited to the Community pension scheme in respect of the applicants’ pension rights acquired prior to their entry into service at the Commission;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, air transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2015322EN.01000701.xml










30.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/7





Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 322/07)






Member State


France




Route concerned


Strasbourg – Prague




Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation


28 March 2010




Date of entry into force of the changes


1 April 2016




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained


Arrêté du 21 septembre 2015 modifiant l’arrêté du 14 août 2009 relatif à la modification des obligations de service public imposées sur les services aériens réguliers entre Strasbourg et Prague (Order of 21 September 2015 amending the Order or 14 August 2009 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Strasbourg and Prague)
NOR: DEVA1518567A
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
For further information please contact:





Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile




DTA/SDT/T2




50 rue Henry Farman




75720 Paris Cedex 15




FRANCE




Tel. +33 158094321




E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr
Case T-610/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Ecolab USA v OHIM (GREASECUTTER) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark GREASECUTTER — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015389EN.01003701.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/37





Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Ecolab USA v OHIM (GREASECUTTER)
(Case T-610/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark GREASECUTTER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 389/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1704/2012-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark GREASECUTTER.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case F-14/12 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Civil Service — Officials — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Promotion — 2011 promotion year — Refusal of promotion — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, equal treatment, promotion








C_2015371EN.01004601.xml










9.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/46





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors
(Case F-14/12 RENV)
((Civil Service - Officials - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Promotion - 2011 promotion year - Refusal of promotion - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2015/C 371/47)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: B. Schäfer and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion year.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2.


In Cases F-14/12 and F-14/12 RENV, Mr Schönberger shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors.










3.


In Case T-26/14 P, the European Court of Auditors shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Schönberger.
Case F-129/15: Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, retirement conditions, transfer of pension rights








C_2015414EN.01004401.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/44





Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-129/15)
(2015/C 414/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Jeannin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to take into account, for the purposes of calculating the applicant’s retirement pension, the period of service equivalent to 26 days which was granted following the transfer of pension rights acquired in the national system to the EU pension scheme, and a claim for one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision rejecting his complaint and the implied decision, by the decision of 6 February 2015 on the granting and payment of his pension rights, not to take into account, for the purposes of calculating that pension, the period of 26 days acquired through the transfer of pension rights from the French retirement schemes known as CNAVTS-ARRCO and MSA;










—


award one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;










—


order the Commission to pay EUR 3  500 by way of costs.
Case T-364/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Mocek, Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Applications for annulment and alteration brought by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015389EN.01003301.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/33





Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Mocek, Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)
(Case T-364/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Applications for annulment and alteration brought by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991))
(2015/C 389/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eugenia Mocek and Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala and B. Szczepaniak, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lacoste SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Gaultier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA;










3.


Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration;










4.


Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration.






(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
Case T-450/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Anagnostakis v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Economic and monetary policy — Non-reimbursement of sovereign debt — Affirmation of the principle of the ‘State of necessity’ — Refusal of registration — Powers of the Commission — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Movement, civil society, power of initiative, powers of the institutions (EU), public debt








C_2015389EN.01002701.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/27





Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Anagnostakis v Commission
(Case T-450/12) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Economic and monetary policy - Non-reimbursement of sovereign debt - Affirmation of the principle of the ‘State of necessity’ - Refusal of registration - Powers of the Commission - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 389/27)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Alexios Anagnostakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission decision C(2012) 6289 final of 6 September 2012 rejecting the request to register the European citizens’ initiative ‘One Million Signatures for a Europe of Solidarity’, submitted to the Commission on 13 July 2012.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Mr Alexios Anagnostakis to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.
Case C-424/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Jácint Gábor Balogh v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 213 and 214 — Commencement of an activity not stated — Exemption scheme for small businesses — Penalty)
Date: 2015-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative sanction, economic activity, national law, principle of proportionality, small business, tax exemption, taxpayer








C_2016038EN.01001301.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/13





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Jácint Gábor Balogh v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-424/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 213 and 214 - Commencement of an activity not stated - Exemption scheme for small businesses - Penalty))
(2016/C 038/17)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jácint Gábor Balogh

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the order







1.


Article 213(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring a taxable person to state when an economic activity commences where the proceeds of that activity do not exceed the threshold of the exemption scheme for small enterprises and the taxable person does not intend to carry out a taxable activity.










2.


EU law must be interpreted as not precluding an administrative fine from penalising the failure by a taxable person to comply with his obligation to state when an economic activity commences where the proceeds of that activity do not exceed the threshold of the exemption scheme for small thresholds. It is for the referring court to assess whether, in the case in the main proceedings, the penalty imposed is in conformity with the principle of proportionality.






(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.