do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-776/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Meissen Keramik v OHIM (MEISSEN KERAMIK)
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, furniture industry, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01003202.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/32





Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Meissen Keramik v OHIM (MEISSEN KERAMIK)
(Case T-776/15)
(2016/C 078/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MEISSEN KERAMIK’ — Application for registration No 13 100 797

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2015 in Case R 531/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 November 2015 to 30 November 2015 (Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product








C_2015439EN.01001201.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/12





Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 November 2015 to 30 November 2015
(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC (2))
(2015/C 439/02)
—   Issuing, maintenance or modification of a national marketing authorization











Date of the decision


Name(s) of the medicinal product


INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)


Holder(s) of the marketing authorization


Member State concerned


Date of notification




27.11.2015


Repaglinide


repaglinide


Not applicable


Not applicable


30.11.2015




23.11.2015


Orlistat


Orlistat


Not applicable


Not applicable


24.11.2015




20.11.2015


Rivastigmine


Rivastigmine


Not applicable


Not applicable


24.11.2015






(1)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

(2)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 1.
Case T-765/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — BelTechExport/Council
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, arms control, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2016068EN.01004401.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/44





Action brought on 30 December 2015 — BelTechExport/Council
(Case T-765/15)
(2016/C 068/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BelTechExport ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and E. Koškins, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1948 of 29 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2015 L 284, p. 62) to the extent that it extends the applicability of the restrictive measures, even if temporarily suspended, with respect to the applicant,










—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1957 of 29 October 2015 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2015 L 284, p. 149), to the extent that it extends the applicability of the restrictive measures, even if temporarily suspended, with respect to the applicant, and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant.





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 contested acts do not provide for adequate reasoning for the continuous listing of the applicant in the relevant annexes and that the Council has failed to comply with the provisions of Article 296(2) TFEU, which requires the Council to give reasons










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe the right of defence and the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) in that they were adopted without the applicant being provided with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to benefit from a procedure allowing him to effectively request his removal from the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in that they are based upon false assumption that the applicant, as a major company in the Belarusian sector of arms manufacture and arms export, benefits from the Lukashenka regime










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe the fundamental right to property provided for in Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol No 1 of the ECHR, and that this infringement is not based upon compelling evidence, is unjustified and is disproportionate
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015438EN.01000501.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 438/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 December 2015
(2015/C 438/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0952




JPY


Japanese yen


131,88




DKK


Danish krone


7,4629




GBP


Pound sterling


0,74005




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1567




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0846




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5115




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,028




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,26




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2364




RON


Romanian leu


4,5370




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1878




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5056




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5241




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4882




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5949




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5467




KRW


South Korean won


1 282,17




ZAR


South African rand


16,7598




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1065




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6383




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 029,86




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7055




PHP


Philippine peso


51,514




RUB


Russian rouble


79,4319




THB


Thai baht


39,518




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2187




MXN


Mexican peso


18,8429




INR


Indian rupee


72,6458






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7900 — CVC Capital Partners/USS WAY LP/Moto Holdings) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, retail trade, supplementary pension








C_2015438EN.01000701.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 438/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7900 — CVC Capital Partners/USS WAY LP/Moto Holdings)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 438/05)






1.


On 18 December 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 CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC Group’, Luxembourg) and the Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited (‘USS’, the United Kindgdom).acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Moto Holdings Limited (the ‘Target’, the United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CVC Group: advice to and management of investment funds,
—   for USS: acting as the sole corporate trustee of the Universities Superannuation Scheme, which is one of the largest private sector pension funds in the UK. The scheme administers the principal pension scheme for academic and comparable staff in UK universities and other higher education and research institutions,
—   for the Target: operation of motorway service areas in the UK under the brand name ‘moto’.










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.7900 — CVC Capital Partners/USS WAY LP/Moto Holdings, 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.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2012-2013 SESSION Sittings of 14 to 17 January 2013 The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 92 E, 28.3.2013. TEXTS ADOPTED
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EP resolution, European Parliament








C_2015440EN.01000101.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 440/1






EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2012-2013 SESSION
Sittings of 14 to 17 January 2013

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 92 E, 28.3.2013.

TEXTS ADOPTED
Case T-755/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, damages, motor vehicle industry, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition, tax system








C_2016059EN.01004801.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/48





Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission
(Case T-755/15)
(2016/C 059/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, S. Naudin and A. Steichen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


primarily, annul the Commission decision of 21 October concerning State aid SA.38375 implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of FIAT;










—


in the alternative, annul the Commission decision of 21 October concerning State aid SA.38375 implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of FIAT in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





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 infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the Commission has not adduced proof that the contested anticipatory decision was selective.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU and of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission did not adduce proof of an advantage or of a restriction of competition.










3.


Third plea in law, relied on in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission required recovery of the aid in disregard of the principle of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence.
Case T-771/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, data transmission, database, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016191EN.01003401.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/34





Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)
(Case T-771/15)
(2016/C 191/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Bittorrent Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Hopper, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BitTorrent, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU mark No 3 216 439

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2015 in Case R 2275/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation of the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) and of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7889 — Engie/REC/TEN) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, merger control








C_2015438EN.01000601.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 438/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7889 — Engie/REC/TEN)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 438/04)






1.


On 18 December 2015 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings E.CL SA, ultimately controlled by Engie SA (‘Engie’ of France) and Red Eléctrica Chile SpA, ultimately controlled by Red Eléctrica Corporación SA (‘REC’ of Spain) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking Transmisora Eléctrica del Norte SA (‘TEN’ of Chile) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Engie is a global energy player and an expert operator in the three key sectors of electricity, natural gas and energy services,










—


REC operates the national electricity grid and power transmission system in Spain and is also active in some countries in South America,










—


TEN has currently no activity on the market but will develop and operate an electricity transmission line in Chile.














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 number M.7889 — Engie/REC/TEN, 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7834 — Sumitomo Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/PT Summit OTO Finance/PT OTO Multiartha) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-12-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2015438EN.01000401.xml










30.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 438/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7834 — Sumitomo Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/PT Summit OTO Finance/PT OTO Multiartha)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 438/02)
On 18 December 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 language 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 32015M7834. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.