do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norwegian Sea, Sweden, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2015386EN.01000201.xml










20.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/2





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2015/C 386/02)
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


19.10.2015




Duration


19.10-31.12.2015




Member State


Sweden




Stock or Group of stocks


COD/04-N.




Species


Cod (Gadus morhua)




Zone


Norwegian waters south of 62° N




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


57/TQ104






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 683/2011 of 17 June 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 as regards fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks (OJ L 187, 16.7.2011)
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015303EN.01010802.xml










20.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 303/108







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 683/2011 of 17 June 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 as regards fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 187 of 16 July 2011
)


On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 1, in the title:
for:

               ‘Council Regulation (EU) No 683/2011 of 17 June 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 …’;
read:

               ‘Council Regulation (EU) No 683/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 …’.
Case C-614/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement of EU law, staff, temporary employment, veterinary inspection








C_2016068EN.01002101.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj
(Case C-614/15)
(2016/C 068/27)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Rodica Popescu

Respondent: Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

Questions referred







1.


Is the fact that the activity of the staff specifically responsible for inspections in the veterinary health sector is intrinsically linked to the continuation of the activity of the type of establishments mentioned in paragraph [5] [of the order for reference] sufficient grounds for the repeated conclusion of fixed-term contracts, by way of derogation from the general rule adopted in order to transpose Directive 70/1999? (1)











2.


Does the retaining in national legislation of special provisions permitting the repeated conclusion, for a period such as that described [in the order for reference], of fixed-term employment contracts in the veterinary health inspection sector constitute a failure to fulfil an obligation of the State when transposing Directive 70/1999?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Case T-675/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Taiwan, United States, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, plate








C_2016038EN.01006501.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/65





Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission
(Case T-675/15)
(2016/C 038/88)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (Taiyuan, China) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10), to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicant and collects provisional duties imposed on such exports; and










—


order the Commission to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in connection with these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1225/2009 (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by identifying and selecting the United States of America (‘US’) as the appropriate analogue country in this case. This selection was based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation as well as on manifest errors of appraisal of the facts. Alternatively, the Commission manifestly misapplied Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make certain required adjustments to normal value despite selecting the US as the analogue country.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make the required adjustment for internal transport costs of a US exporting producer pursuant to section (k) of this provision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation. The Commission’s analysis of certain injury factors and of causation is vitiated by manifest errors of appraisal of the facts and/or is not in line with the Commission’s duty to examine data with care and impartiality.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
Case T-670/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Osho Lotus Commune v OHIM — Osho International Foundation (OSHO)
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, provision of services, registered trade mark, religion, sport, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01007201.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/72





Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Osho Lotus Commune v OHIM — Osho International Foundation (OSHO)
(Case T-670/15)
(2016/C 027/91)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Osho Lotus Commune e.V. (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Osho International Foundation (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘OSHO’ — Application for registration No 1 224 831

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2015 in Case R 1997/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and, where relevant, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (f) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-203/15: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark WORLD OF BINGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01006001.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/60





Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)
(Case T-203/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark WORLD OF BINGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 038/80)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 (Case R 1900/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign WORLD OF BINGO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Zitro IP Sàrl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015386EN.01000101.xml










20.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 November 2015
(2015/C 386/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0687




JPY


Japanese yen


131,60




DKK


Danish krone


7,4603




GBP


Pound sterling


0,69980




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3089




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0893




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2556




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,26




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2500




RON


Romanian leu


4,4438




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0433




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4925




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4203




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2829




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6404




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5129




KRW


South Korean won


1 241,54




ZAR


South African rand


15,1806




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


6,8244




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6310




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 714,18




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6314




PHP


Philippine peso


50,259




RUB


Russian rouble


69,4086




THB


Thai baht


38,324




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0154




MXN


Mexican peso


17,8206




INR


Indian rupee


70,7800






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-202/15: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark WORLD OF BINGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01005901.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/59





Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)
(Case T-202/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark WORLD OF BINGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 038/79)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 (Case R 1899/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WORLD OF BINGO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Zitro IP Sàrl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7779 — Trafigura/Nyrstar) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy supply, energy transport, merger control, metallurgical industry, mining industry








C_2015386EN.01000301.xml










20.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7779 — Trafigura/Nyrstar)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 386/03)






1.


On 11 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 undertaking Trafigura Beheer B.V. (‘Trafigura’, the Netherlands) acquires with the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation de facto sole control of Nyrstar (Belgium). The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 26 October 2015, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 30 October 2015.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Trafigura is one of the world’s leading international commodity traders. Trafigura’s primary trading businesses are the supply and transport of crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, metals (including copper, lead, zinc and aluminium) and metal ores and concentrate,










—


Nyrstar is an integrated mining and metals company with established positions in zinc and lead and growing positions in other base and precious metals. Nyrstar has mining, smelting, and other operations located around the world.














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.










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.7779 — Trafigura/Nyrstar, 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’).
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision 2011/848/CFSP of 16 December 2011 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 335, 17.12.2011)
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, economic sanctions, international sanctions, removal








L_2015303EN.01010801.xml










20.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 303/108







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision 2011/848/CFSP of 16 December 2011 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 335 of 17 December 2011
)


On page 83, signature:
for:



                     ‘
                     For the Council


The President

T. NALEWAJK
                     ’,


read:



                     ‘
                     For the Council


The President

M. SAWICKI
                     ’.
Case C-616/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, medical institution, paramedical profession, physician, provision of services, restriction on competition, tax exemption








C_2016098EN.01001702.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/17





Action brought on 20 November 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-616/15)
(2016/C 098/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






1.


declare that, by restricting, to groups whose members exercise a limited number of professions, the exemption from VAT for the supply by independent groups of persons carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT, or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, of services to their members for the direct purposes of the exercise of that activity where those groups merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT directive; (1)











2.


order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following:
Germany restricts to certain well-defined professions the exemption from VAT for the supply of services by independent groups of persons carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT, or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, for the direct purposes of the exercise of that activity. The exemption under the German law on VAT covers solely groups whose members are either doctors or health professionals and hospitals or establishments similar to hospitals.
This is incompatible with Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. Neither the wording, purpose, nor preparatory work leading to the adoption of Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC justifies such a restriction of the exemption from VAT to groups from certain professions. The exemption should, however, apply to groups from all professions provided that they exercise tax-exempt professions.
The restriction under the German law on VAT is also not justified by a potential general distortion of competition. This is because, as far as tax exemptions are concerned, the presence or absence of a distortion of competition can only apply with regard to the specific facts of a given case. Distortions of competition cannot be assessed in the abstract for certain professions of a group and services provided in connection with those professions.


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-623/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2015 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-104/13: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, fine, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, screen, television








C_2016027EN.01002601.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/26





Appeal brought on 20 November 2015 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-104/13: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
(Case C-623/15 P)
(2016/C 027/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J. F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, J. Jourdan, avocat, A. Kadri, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-104/13 insofar as it upheld the finding of the European Commission that Toshiba is jointly and severally liable for the conduct of MTPD;










—


Annul the Decision of the European Commission in Case COMP/39.437 TV and Computer Monitor Tubes insofar as it found that Toshiba infringed Article 101 TFEU and held Toshiba jointly and severally liable for the conduct of MTPD;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law:
The General Court misapplied the concept of undertaking by incorrectly classifying certain elements as indicating that Toshiba was in a position to, or did actually, exercise decisive influence over MTPD and by concluding that the sum of those elements was sufficient to support the conclusion that Toshiba did exercise such influence over MTPD.
Case T-681/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)
Date: 2015-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wood industry








C_2016038EN.01006701.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/67





Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)
(Case T-681/15)
(2016/C 038/90)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Elmar Wolf SA (Wissembourg, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a wolf’s head) — Community trade mark application No 4 971 511

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 1252/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.