do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-74/15: Order of the Court of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Guarantee contracts and contracts providing immovable property as security concluded with a credit institution by natural persons acting for purposes outside their trade, business or profession and having no connection of a functional nature with the commercial company for which they act as guarantor)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, credit, credit institution, guarantee, natural person, real property, unfair terms of contract








C_2016038EN.01001702.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/17





Order of the Court of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA and Others
(Case C-74/15) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Guarantee contracts and contracts providing immovable property as security concluded with a credit institution by natural persons acting for purposes outside their trade, business or profession and having no connection of a functional nature with the commercial company for which they act as guarantor))
(2016/C 038/25)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău

Defendants: Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA Arad, Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare, Cristian Tarcău, Corina Tarcău, SC Magenta, in liquidation, SC Crisco SRL

Operative part of the order

Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive may apply to a contract providing immovable property as security or to a guarantee contract concluded between a natural person and a credit institution in order to guarantee the obligations which a commercial company has entered into with that institution in the context of a credit agreement, where that natural person has acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession and has no connection in terms of function with that company.


(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case C-455/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 23(a) — Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Public policy)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: guardianship, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, parental authority








C_2016016EN.01001301.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/13





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q
(Case C-455/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 23(a) - Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Public policy))
(2016/C 016/15)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Varbergs tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: P

Defendant: Q

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a Member State or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision does not allow a court of that Member State which considers that it has jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another Member State which has ruled on the custody of that child.


(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7805 — Apollo Capital Management/RBH/LRG Finance) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2015385EN.01000101.xml










19.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7805 — Apollo Capital Management/RBH/LRG Finance)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 385/01)
On 12 November 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 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 32015M7805. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case F-143/15: Action brought on 19 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), termination of employment, work contract








C_2016068EN.01004501.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/45





Action brought on 19 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-143/15)
(2016/C 068/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Fombaron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking annulment of the decision terminating early his employment at the European Parliament.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision dated 19 August 2015 rejecting the complaint brought on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;










—


annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 25 February 2015;










—


annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 2 February 2015;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
Case C-619/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-364/13: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v EUIPO
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016326EN.01000701.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/7





Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-364/13: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v EUIPO
(Case C-619/15 P)
(2016/C 326/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna (represented by: B. Szczepaniak, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 21 June 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7848 — ATP/AXA/Club Quarters/Cleavon) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, insurance company, investment company, merger control, property development, social services








C_2015385EN.01001701.xml










19.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7848 — ATP/AXA/Club Quarters/Cleavon)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 385/08)






1.


On 13 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 AXA SA (‘AXA’, France) and Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension (‘ATP’, Denmark) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and of the Merger Regulation joint control over Cleavon SARL (Luxembourg), which holds two hotels and ancillary retail units located in London, by way of purchase of shares. AXA and ATP will acquire joint control over the two hotels together with Club Quarters Management LLC (‘Club Quarters’, USA) by virtue of pre-existing hotel management agreements.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for AXA: life, health and other forms of insurance, as well as investment management;
—   for ATP: administering a number of welfare and social security schemes that help to provide basic security for Danish citizens;
—   for Club Quarters: owning, managing and operating hotels. It is also involved in real estate development including hotels and mixed use development.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7848 — ATP/AXA/Club Quarters/Cleavon, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-539/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — North Drilling v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, arms control, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear weapon








C_2016016EN.01003501.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/35





Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — North Drilling v Council
(Case T-539/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment))
(2016/C 016/43)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 65), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/14 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/14 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 1), in so far as they concern North Drilling Co.;










2.


Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2014/222 and Article 1 of Implementing Regulation No 397/2014 to be maintained in respect of North Drilling until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of that appeal;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU waters, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, Sweden, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015385EN.01001401.xml










19.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/14





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 385/04)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


5.10.2015




Duration


5.10-31.12.2015




Member State


Sweden




Stock or Group of stocks


COD/2A3AX4




Species


Cod (Gadus morhua)




Zone


IV; Union waters of IIa; that part of IIIa not covered by the Skagerrak and Kattegat




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


55/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-526/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark Matratzen Concord — Earlier national word marks MATRATZEN — Relative ground of refusal — Proof of use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016016EN.01003401.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/34





Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord)
(Case T-526/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark Matratzen Concord - Earlier national word marks MATRATZEN - Relative ground of refusal - Proof of use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 016/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez (Sant Just Desvern, Spain) and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2014 (Case R 1523/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and, on the other hand, Matratzen Concord GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.