do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2014 of 2 May 2014 on the specific rules for implementing Regulation (EU) No 231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession assistance (IPA II) (OJ L 132, 3.5.2014)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, aid evaluation, aid recipient, cross-border cooperation, pre-accession aid, regional cooperation, rural development, use of aid








L_2015277EN.01006002.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 277/60







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2014 of 2 May 2014 on the specific rules for implementing Regulation (EU) No 231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession assistance (IPA II)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 132 of 3 May 2014
)


On page 47, point (a) of Article 43(1):
for:


                  ‘if it has been incurred by a beneficiary from a Member State and paid between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2022; or’,

read:


                  ‘if it has been incurred by a beneficiary from a Member State and paid between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2023; or’.
Case C-549/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 October 2015 — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biofuel, biogas, energy grid, trade restriction








C_2016007EN.01001101.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 October 2015 — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet
(Case C-549/15)
(2016/C 007/17)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E.ON Biofor Sverige AB

Defendant: Statens energimyndighet

Questions referred







1.


Are the terms ‘mass balance’ and ‘mixture’ in Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States have an obligation to accept trade in biogas between Member States via an interconnected gas network?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in that case is the relevant provision of the directive compatible with Article 34 TFEU, despite the fact that application thereof is likely to have the effect of restricting trade?






(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7774 — Antofagasta/Barrick/Zaldivar) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, mining industry








C_2015350EN.01000101.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7774 — Antofagasta/Barrick/Zaldivar)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 350/01)
On 15 October 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 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 32015M7774. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-20/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH, formerly BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Further grounds for refusal or invalidity — Word mark — Same letter sequence as an earlier trade mark — Addition of a descriptive word combination — Existence of a likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consumer protection, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01000301.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH, formerly BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz
(Case C-20/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Further grounds for refusal or invalidity - Word mark - Same letter sequence as an earlier trade mark - Addition of a descriptive word combination - Existence of a likelihood of confusion))
(2015/C 414/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH, formerly BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH

Defendant: Bodo Scholz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of identical or similar goods and services, there may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public between an earlier mark consisting of a letter sequence, which is distinctive and is the dominant element in that mark of average distinctiveness, and a later mark which reproduces that letter sequence and to which is added a descriptive combination of words, the initial letters of which correspond to the letters of that sequence, with the result that that sequence is perceived by that public as the acronym of that combination of words.


(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
Case T-601/15: Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, claim, financial aid, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, research project








C_2015429EN.01002801.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/28





Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission
(Case T-601/15)
(2015/C 429/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


order the Commission to pay CEVA the amount of EUR 59  103,21, in accordance with the Grant Agreement;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

With this application, the applicant seeks an order for the payment by the Commission of the first instalment of the financial contribution granted in implement of the SEABIOPLAS contract and the Grant Agreement, concerning a research and technological development project in the field of ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’, following the offsetting of that amount by the Commission of its own motion by way of recovery of the sums paid to the applicant under the PROTOP contract, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit by OLAF.
In support of the action, the applicant relies, essentially, on a single plea in law, alleging errors committed by the Commission which prevented the recovery by offsetting claims against sums paid to the applicant by the Commission. The applicant claims, in essence, that the conditions for recovery by offsetting were not met. First, the claim of the Commission against the applicant was neither certain, nor payable. Second, the Commission had not complied with Article 87(2) (recovery by offsetting) and Article 88 (recovery procedure failing voluntary payment) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has no contractual claim against it. In the alternative, in the event that the Court holds that the offsetting is valid, the applicant submits that the refund of the total amount of the grant it received is contrary to the principle of proportionality and amounts to the unjust enrichment of the Commission.
Case C-185/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘EasyPay’ AD, ‘Finance Engineering’ AD v Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Money order service — Directive 97/67/EC — Scope — National legislation granting an exclusive right to provide a money order service — State aid — Economic activity — Services of general economic interest)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, economic activity, pension scheme, post office financial services, postal service, provision of services, services of general interest








C_2015414EN.01000401.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/4





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘EasyPay’ AD, ‘Finance Engineering’ AD v Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut
(Case C-185/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Money order service - Directive 97/67/EC - Scope - National legislation granting an exclusive right to provide a money order service - State aid - Economic activity - Services of general economic interest))
(2015/C 414/05)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants:‘EasyPay’ AD, ‘Finance Engineering’ AD

Defendants: Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a money order service by which the sender, in this case the State, transfers sums of money to a beneficiary through the postal operator entrusted with providing the universal postal service does not fall within the scope of that directive.










2.


Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, if the activity of money order operations enabling the payment of retirement pensions constitutes an economic activity, the grant by a Member State of an exclusive right to pay retirement pensions by money order to an undertaking such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not, however, caught by that provision, in so far as that service constitutes a service of general economic interest, the remuneration for which represents compensation for the services carried out by that undertaking to discharge its public service obligation.






(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7734 — Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky Aircraft) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2015350EN.01000201.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7734 — Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky Aircraft)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 350/03)
On 15 October 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 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 32015M7734. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-27/13: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Elan v Commission
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovenia, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, domestic market, financial aid, pleasure craft, reimbursement of aid, sports equipment








C_2015429EN.01002901.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/29





Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Elan v Commission
(Case T-27/13) (1)

(2015/C 429/37)
Language of the case: Slovene
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
Case C-530/14 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Appeal — State aid — Greek Casinos — System providing for a levy of 80 % of the admissions of different amounts — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, control of State aid, economic consequence, equal treatment, gaming establishment, price disparity








C_2016038EN.01001502.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/15





Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-530/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Greek Casinos - System providing for a levy of 80 % of the admissions of different amounts - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 038/21)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic (represented by K. Boskovits and P. Mylonopoulos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Case C-378/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 67 — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 60(1) — Payment of family benefits where parents are divorced — Definition of the ‘person concerned’ — Law of a Member State providing for the payment of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his household — Residence of that parent in another Member State — Failure of that parent to claim family benefits — Possibility of entitlement of the other parent to claim those family benefits)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dependant, divorce, family benefit, legal domicile








C_2015414EN.01000801.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/8





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski
(Case C-378/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 67 - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 60(1) - Payment of family benefits where parents are divorced - Definition of the ‘person concerned’ - Law of a Member State providing for the payment of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his household - Residence of that parent in another Member State - Failure of that parent to claim family benefits - Possibility of entitlement of the other parent to claim those family benefits))
(2015/C 414/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen

Defendant: Tomislaw Trapkowski

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 60(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the deeming provision included there may lead to the grant of entitlement to family benefits for a person who does not reside in the Member State responsible for paying those benefits where all the other conditions for the grant of those benefits laid down by national law are met, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.










2.


Article 60(1), third sentence, of Regulation No 987/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that there is no requirement that the parent of the child for whom child benefits are paid, who resides in the Member State obliged to pay those benefits, must be granted entitlement to those benefits on the ground that the other parent, who resides in another Member State, has not applied for them.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Case T-431/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark CHOICE — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01003001.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/30





Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE)
(Case T-431/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark CHOICE - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 414/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2014 (Case R 2019/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CHOICE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
Case T-563/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ELITEDISPLAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, screen, trade-mark law








C_2015406EN.01003101.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/31






Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)
(Case T-563/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ELITEDISPLAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 406/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1539/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEDISPLAY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hewlett Packard Development Company LP to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 351, 5.10.2014.
Corrigendum to Call for proposals 2016 — EAC/A04/2015 — Erasmus+ programme (OJ C 347, 20.10.2015)
Date: 2015-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU budget, EU programme, cooperation in the field of education, education grant, educational exchange, higher education, student mobility, youth exchange scheme








C_2015350EN.01001401.xml










22.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/14





Corrigendum to Call for proposals 2016 — EAC/A04/2015 — Erasmus+ programme
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 347 of 20 October 2015
)
(2015/C 350/14)
On page 9, point 5 ‘Deadline for the submission of applications’ has been amended as follows, as regards Key Action 2 — Strategic partnerships:

‘Key Action 2







Strategic partnerships in the field of youth


2 February 2016




Strategic partnerships in the field of education and training


31 March 2016




Strategic partnerships in the field of youth


26 April 2016




Strategic partnerships in the field of youth


4 October 2016’