do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 10 December 2015 in the case of Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority (Case E-29/15)
Date: 2015-12-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, competition law, cooperative, interpretation of the law, municipality, public sector, waste management








C_2016480EN.01000801.xml










22.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 480/8





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 10 December 2015 in the case of Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority
(Case E-29/15)
(2016/C 480/10)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 10 December 2015 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 10 December 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority on the following questions:






1.


Is a municipality in a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement which carries out, in its jurisdiction, the management of waste in conformity with the provisions of Directives 75/442/EEC, 1999/31/EC and 2000/76/EC, an undertaking in the sense of Article 54 of the Agreement? In this connection, the Court asks whether, when this question is answered, the following are of significance: a) That the treatment of waste is among the legally-prescribed functions of municipalities according to the laws of the relevant Contracting Party. b) That competition may exist over the treatment of waste between private entities and public entities under the laws of the Contracting Party. c) That it is prescribed, in the laws of the Contracting Party, that in this field, a municipality may not charge a higher fee than covers the cost of the treatment of waste and related activities.










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the same apply to a cooperative undertaking which is operated by two or more municipalities and attends, on their behalf, to the management of waste in their operating areas?










3.


When assessing whether Article 54 EEA applies to an activity of a municipality or a cooperative undertaking, is it of significance that the laws of the Contracting Party in question contain provisions authorising or obliging public bodies to perform the activity? Is it compatible with the EEA Agreement that a Contracting Party exempts, through legislation, certain activities by public entities from the scope of competition law?










4.


Can municipalities which are the owners of a cooperative undertaking such as the one referred to in Question 2 be considered as its trading parties in the sense of Article 54(2)(c) EEA? And if so, does a discount granted to the owners which is not available to other parties constitute placing other parties at a disadvantage in the sense of the same provision?
Case T-615/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of the outline of a crest) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing the outline of a crest — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3)of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, professional sport, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01005001.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/50





Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of the outline of a crest)
(Case T-615/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing the outline of a crest - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3)of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 038/65)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2014 (Case R 2500/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing the outline of a crest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


The action is dismissed;










2.


Fútbol Club Barcelona is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
Case C-153/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Restrictive measures taken against Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellant’s name — Admissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_2016078EN.01000302.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/3





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union
(Case C-153/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Restrictive measures taken against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Admissibility - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2016/C 078/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, advokat, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, avocats, and M. Gambardella, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Case F-17/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal — Appraisal report — Request for amendment — Refusal)
Date: 2015-12-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, report, staff assessment








C_2016048EN.01009601.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/96





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission
(Case F-17/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Appraisal - Appraisal report - Request for amendment - Refusal))
(2016/C 048/109)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Arnulf Jäger-Waldau (Laveno, Italy) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Berscheid, acting as Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision not to amend the applicant’s 2013 appraisal report.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Declares that Mr Jäger-Waldau shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 40.
Case C-427/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance examination of declarations — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination — Powers — Decision on the first post-clearance examination — Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision)
Date: 2015-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs inspection, customs territory (EU), customs union








C_2016048EN.01000302.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA
(Case C-427/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance examination of declarations - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination - Powers - Decision on the first post-clearance examination - Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision))
(2016/C 048/04)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:‘Veloserviss’ SIA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which a restriction is placed on the customs authorities’ powers to conduct re-examinations or post-clearance examinations and to regularise the situation by fixing a new customs debt, provided that that restriction refers to a three-year period from the time the initial customs debt was incurred, which it is for the national court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.