do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-389/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01007602.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/76





Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
(Case T-389/14) (1)

(2016/C 027/97)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
Case F-80/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GK and GH v Commission
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015429EN.01003003.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/30





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GK and GH v Commission
(Case F-80/15) (1)

(2015/C 429/42)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 58.
Case T-631/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Baltic Sea, Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, financing, hinterland transport, project of common interest, rail transport, restriction on competition, tunnel








C_2016059EN.01002201.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/22





Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission
(Case T-631/15)
(2016/C 059/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stena Line Scandinavia AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project; and










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the funding granted to A/S Femern for the Danish rail hinterland connections does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the aid measures granted to Femern A/S for the Fixed Link are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project was of common European interest and in finding that the aid was necessary and proportionate. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test and regarding the mobilisation of the State guarantees.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. The applicant alleges that there are evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure. In addition, the applicant alleges an insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections, regarding the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, regarding the necessity and proportionality of the aid and regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons. The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the Danish rail hinterland connections, in relation to the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, in relation to the necessity and proportionality of the aid and in relation to the undue distortions of competition and balancing test.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015374EN.01000201.xml










11.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 November 2015
(2015/C 374/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0711




JPY


Japanese yen


131,98




DKK


Danish krone


7,4601




GBP


Pound sterling


0,70840




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3102




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0765




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2765




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,044




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,69




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2432




RON


Romanian leu


4,4520




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1220




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5189




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4204




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3026




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6360




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5234




KRW


South Korean won


1 242,06




ZAR


South African rand


15,3716




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8121




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6000




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 601,38




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6946




PHP


Philippine peso


50,600




RUB


Russian rouble


69,0542




THB


Thai baht


38,485




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0627




MXN


Mexican peso


17,9789




INR


Indian rupee


70,9818






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-223/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ — Private documents — Cross-border implications — Functioning of the internal market)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cross-border cooperation, data transmission, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, provision of documents, single market








C_2016016EN.01000902.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez
(Case C-223/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ - Private documents - Cross-border implications - Functioning of the internal market))
(2016/C 016/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ referred to in that article encompasses not only documents drawn up or certified by a public authority or official but also private documents of which the formal transmission to an addressee residing abroad is necessary for the purposes of exercising, proving or safeguarding a right or a claim in civil or commercial law.










2.


Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that service of an extrajudicial document, pursuant to the detailed rules laid down by that regulation, can be effected even where the applicant has already effected an earlier service of that document through a means of transmission not provided for in the regulation, or through another of the means of transmission put in place by it.










3.


Article 16 of Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions of that article are satisfied, it is not necessary to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis, whether the service of an extrajudicial document has cross-border implications and is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-627/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2016068EN.01002901.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/29





Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)
(Case T-627/15)
(2016/C 068/38)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, and E. Montelione, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BIANCALUNA’ — Application for registration No 11 251 808

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2952/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision; and/or










—


remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings;










—


in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjamas, t-shirts, panties, undues.





Pleas in law







—


Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right;










—


Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in evaluating the likelihood of confusion amongst the signs in comparison.
Case T-388/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01007601.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/76





Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
(Case T-388/14) (1)

(2016/C 027/96)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7811 — Koch Industries/BDT Capital Partners/Truck-Lite) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic component, holding company, investment company, lighting equipment, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2015374EN.01000301.xml










11.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7811 — Koch Industries/BDT Capital Partners/Truck-Lite)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 374/04)






1.


On 3 November 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 Koch TL Holdings, LLC (United States), ultimately controlled by Koch Industries Inc. (‘KII’, United States) and BDT Truck-Lite Acquisition Vehicle, LLC (United States), ultimately controlled by BDT Capital Partners, LLC (‘BDT’, United States) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking Truck-Lite Co., LLC (‘Truck-Lite’, United States) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


KII is a privately held United States undertaking, which through a portfolio of controlled entities is active on various markets, including the manufacturing and sales of electronic components,










—


BDT is a US-based company specialising in buyouts and investments in family-owned and entrepreneurially-led businesses,










—


Truck-Lite is a lighting designer and manufacturing company based in the United States. The company’s product lines range from LED and traditional lighting products to integrated electronic wire harnesses, mirror systems and diesel fuel filter systems.














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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7811 — Koch Industries/BDT Capital Partners/Truck-Lite, 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 F-55/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — HA v Commission
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, indemnification, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015429EN.01003002.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/30





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — HA v Commission
(Case F-55/15) (1)

(2015/C 429/41)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 45.
Case C-219/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Birmingham Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Calculation of entitlement to leave in the event of an increase in working time — Interpretation of the pro rata temporis principle)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, paid leave, part-time employment








C_2016016EN.01000901.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/9





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Birmingham Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd
(Case C-219/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Calculation of entitlement to leave in the event of an increase in working time - Interpretation of the pro rata temporis principle))
(2016/C 016/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Birmingham Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kathleen Greenfield

Defendant: The Care Bureau Ltd

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/CE of 7 April 1998, and Article 7 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 the event of an increase in the number of hours of work performed by a worker, the Member States are not obliged to provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave already accrued, and possibly taken, must be recalculated retroactively according to that worker’s new work pattern. A new calculation must, however, be performed for the period during which working time increased.










2.


Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to be performed according to the same principles, whether what is being determined is the allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken where the employment relationship is terminated, or the outstanding annual leave entitlement where the employment relationship continues.






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case T-387/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01007502.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/75





Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
(Case T-387/14) (1)

(2016/C 027/95)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Case T-550/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Reasonable period — Absence of key controls — Extrapolation of the findings of default)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, food processing, olive, pip fruit, principle of legal certainty, stone fruit








C_2016007EN.01002301.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/23





Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-550/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Reasonable period - Absence of key controls - Extrapolation of the findings of default))
(2016/C 007/31)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, K. Skelly, acting as Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 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 219, p. 49).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
Case C-582/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 11 November 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Gerrit van Vemde
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal law, criminal procedure, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, ruling








C_2016027EN.01001601.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 11 November 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Gerrit van Vemde
(Case C-582/15)
(2016/C 027/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Gerrit van Vemde

Question referred

Must the first sentence of Article 28(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (1) be understood as meaning that the declaration referred to therein may relate only to judgments issued before 5 December 2011, irrespective of when those judgments became final, or must that provision be understood as meaning that the declaration may relate only to judgments which became final before 5 December 2011?


(1)  Council Framework Decision of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).
Case C-505/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — State aid — Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU — Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid — Res judicata — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Principle of effectiveness)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, contract, control of State aid, interpretation of the law








C_2016016EN.01001202.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/12





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
(Case C-505/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - State aid - Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU - Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid - Res judicata - Interpretation in conformity with EU law - Principle of effectiveness))
(2016/C 016/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Operative part of the judgment

EU law precludes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the application of a rule of national law enshrining the principle of res judicata from preventing a national court which has held that contracts forming the subject-matter of the dispute before it constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, implemented in breach of the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, from drawing all the consequences of that breach because of a national judicial decision which has become definitive, which court, without examining whether those contracts constitute State aid, has held that the contracts remain in force.


(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.