do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-636/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2015 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-366/14: August Storck v EUIPO
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016270EN.01001601.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/16





Appeal brought on 30 November 2015 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-366/14: August Storck v EUIPO
(Case C-636/15 P)
(2016/C 270/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: N. Gregor, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 11 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-634/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher and Manfred Naderhirn
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: pharmaceutical legislation, pharmacy, right of establishment








C_2016326EN.01000702.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher and Manfred Naderhirn
(Case C-634/15)
(2016/C 326/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher, Manfred Naderhirn

Intervening parties: Agnes Hemetsberger, Mag. Jungwirth und Mag. Fabian OHG and Others
By the order of 30 June 2016, the Court (Eighth Chamber) orders:
The judgment of 13 February 2014 in Sokoll-Seebacher (C-367/12, EU:C:2014:68) must be read as meaning that the criterion relating to a strict limit on the number of ‘persons who continue to be served’, laid down by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, is not to be applied, for the purposes of determining the existence of a need to open a new pharmacy, in a general manner, in every specific situation which will be the subject of an assessment.
Raif Badawi : censored, jailed, flogged, but not silenced : Sakharov prize laureate.
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: censorship, cultural prize, dissidence, freedom of opinion, human rights

5
1
0
2
e
g
a
l
r
e
v
h
c
u
B
n
i
e
t
s
l
l

U
©

P
-
N
E
-
3
2
4
-
5
1
-
2
0
-
A
Q

RAIF
BADAWI

CENSORED. JAILED. FLOGGED.
BUT NOT SILENCED.
2015 SAKHAROV PRIZE LAUREATE
europarl.europa.eu/sakharov
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 November 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39767 — BEH Electricity — Rapporteur: Belgium
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Bulgaria, commodities exchange, competition policy, dominant position, electrical energy, electricity supply, subsidiary








C_2016334EN.01000401.xml










10.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 334/4





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 November 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39767 — BEH Electricity
Rapporteur: Belgium
(2016/C 334/04)






1.


The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 15 November 2015 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD (‘BEH’) can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority of Member States abstain. The majority of Member States agree.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by BEH are suitable and proportionate and should be made legally binding on BEH.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by BEH, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against BEH, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.










5.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-217/14: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission (Action for annulment — Replacement of the contested act during proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, State aid, airport, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, reimbursement of aid








C_2016038EN.01005302.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/53





Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
(Case T-217/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Replacement of the contested act during proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 038/70)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Kosakowo, Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, S. Noë and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2014/883/EU of 11 February 2014 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 51).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Gmina Kosakowo as regards the main proceedings.










3.


Gmina Kosakowo shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Commission as regards the proceedings for interim relief.










4.


The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.
Case T-716/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Gallardo Blanco v OHIM — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal breeding, breeding animal, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016059EN.01003601.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/36





Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Gallardo Blanco v OHIM — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))
(Case T-716/15)
(2016/C 059/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Gallardo Blanco (Los Barrios, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit)) — Application for registration No 10 424 323

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 1502/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 April 2014;










—


amend the previous decisions granting full registration of Community mark No 10 424 323;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings, of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal before OHIM.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 4, 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-638/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Eko-Tabak s.r.o. v Generální ředitelství cel
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, smoking, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2016098EN.01001801.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Eko-Tabak s.r.o. v Generální ředitelství cel
(Case C-638/15)
(2016/C 098/23)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant (applicant at first instance): Eko-Tabak s.r.o.

Other party to the proceedings (defendant at first instance): Generální ředitelství cel

Questions referred







1.


Where dried, flat, irregular, partly stripped leaf tobacco and/or parts thereof which have undergone primary drying and controlled dampening and in which the presence of glycerine is detected are capable of being smoked after simple preparation (by means of crushing or hand-cutting), can they be regarded as manufactured tobacco within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c)(ii) or, as the case may be, Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (1) on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codification)?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Article 5, in conjunction with Article 2, of Council Directive 2011/64/EU on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codification) preclude national legislation of a Member State which extends excise duty on manufactured tobacco to tobacco that is not referred to in Articles 2 and 5 of Council Directive 2011/64/EU on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codification) and that, while not intended for smoking, can be smoked (is capable of and appropriate for being smoked) and has been prepared for sale to the final consumer?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24.
Case T-718/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark W E — Earlier Community word mark WE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016027EN.01005302.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/53





Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E)
(Case T-718/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark W E - Earlier Community word mark WE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 027/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hong Kong Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: J.-H. Spåre, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. van Oerle and E. de Groot, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2014 (Case R 2305/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between WE Brand Sàrl and Hong Kong Group Oy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 August 2014 (Case R 2305/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between WE Brand Sàrl and Hong Kong Group Oy and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 September 2013;










2.


Rejects the opposition;










3.


Orders OHIM and WE Brand to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Hong Kong Group, including those necessarily incurred by Hong Kong Group for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Case F-104/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 November 2015 — O’Riain v Commission (Civil service — Competitions — Competition notice EPSO/AD/241/12 — Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list — Principle of equal treatment of candidates — Impartiality of the selection board — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment








C_2016027EN.01007701.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/77





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 November 2015 — O’Riain v Commission
(Case F-104/14) (1)

((Civil service - Competitions - Competition notice EPSO/AD/241/12 - Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list - Principle of equal treatment of candidates - Impartiality of the selection board - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 027/98)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Donncha O’Riain (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/241/12-GA.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Mr O’Riain shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 7 of 12/1/2015, p. 52.
Case C-366/15: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2015 — European Commission v Romania
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, market approval, national implementing measure, non-ferrous metal, spare part, vehicle parts, waste, waste management








C_2016078EN.01001104.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/11





Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2015 — European Commission v Romania
(Case C-366/15) (1)

(2016/C 078/17)
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
Case T-101/13: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air traffic, arbitration clause, carriage of passengers, competition, low cost airline, supervisor, transfer of businesses








C_2016048EN.01008701.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/87





Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission
(Case T-101/13) (1)

(2016/C 048/96)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015398EN.01000101.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 398/01)

Last publication


OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

Past publications


OJ C 381, 16.11.2015


OJ C 371, 9.11.2015


OJ C 363, 3.11.2015


OJ C 354, 26.10.2015


OJ C 346, 19.10.2015


OJ C 337, 12.10.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Council Decision (EU) 2015/2238 of 30 November 2015 appointing a Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Netherlands, appointment of members








L_2015317EN.01003601.xml










3.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 317/36








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/2238
of 30 November 2015
         
appointing a Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Dutch Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January, on 5 February and on 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. On 18 September 2015, by Council Decision (EU) 2015/1573 (4), Ms Nienke HOMAN was appointed as alternate member until 25 January 2020.












(2)


An alternate member's seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Nienke HOMAN,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Mr H. (Henk) STAGHOUWER, Member of the Executive Council of the Province of Groningen.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 30 November 2015.


For the Council


The President

É. SCHNEIDER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42.

(2)  
            OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25.

(3)  
            OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70.

(4)  
            OJ L 245, 22.9.2015, p. 10.
Case T-513/14: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Green Pack v OHIM (greenpack) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electricity storage device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01005401.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/54





Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Green Pack v OHIM (greenpack)
(Case T-513/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 038/71)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GreenPack GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, subsequently by C. Glasemann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R2324/2013-1) relating to an application for registration of the word sign greenpack as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


GreenPack GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-703/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)
Date: 2015-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016048EN.01008602.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/86





Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)
(Case T-703/15)
(2016/C 048/95)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Groupe Go Sport (Sassenage, France) (represented by: G. Arbant and E. Henry-Mayer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Design Go Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GO SPORT’ — Community trade mark application No 5 144 811

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2015 in Case R 569/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare admissible the Appeal R 569/2015-2;










—


return the case to the Board of Appeal;










—


order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.