do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-120/15: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Proforec v Commission (Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — Focaccia di Recco col formaggio — Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: agricultural product, designation of origin, food production, foodstuff, free movement of goods, frozen product, product designation, wholesale trade








C_2016098EN.01004302.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/43





Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Proforec v Commission
(Case T-120/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - Focaccia di Recco col formaggio - Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 098/57)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Proforec Srl (Recco, Italy) (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni and G. Pescatore, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/39 of 13 January 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (PGI)) (OJ 2015 L 8, p. 7).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio.










3.


Proforec Srl shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission other than those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.










4.


Proforec, the Commission, the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case C-604/14 P: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl — Reimbursement by the Equalisation Fund of part of the electricity costs invoiced to that company by its supplier — Incompatibility with the common market — Advantage — European Commission required to undertake an economic analysis)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, interpretation of the law, price of energy, principle of legal certainty








C_2016136EN.01000201.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/2





Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission, Italian Republic
(Case C-604/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl - Reimbursement by the Equalisation Fund of part of the electricity costs invoiced to that company by its supplier - Incompatibility with the common market - Advantage - European Commission required to undertake an economic analysis))
(2016/C 136/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, advocaat, T. Salonico and M. Siragusa, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), Italian Republic

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7818 — McKesson/UDG Healthcare (pharmaceutical wholesale and associated businesses)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, wholesale trade








C_2016020EN.01000201.xml










21.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 20/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7818 — McKesson/UDG Healthcare (pharmaceutical wholesale and associated businesses))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 20/02)






1.


On 14 January 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which McKesson Deutschland GmbH & Co KGaA, an entity ultimately owned by the McKesson Corporation (‘McKesson’, United States) acquires certain businesses (‘the Target’) from UDG Healthcare plc (‘UDG’, Ireland), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


McKesson operates in the distribution and delivery of: ethicals and branded pharmaceuticals and medical equipment; medical supply products; and the delivery of healthcare information technology to healthcare organisations.










—


UDG is a provider of sales and marketing services, wholesaling, medical equipment, packaging and specialist healthcare delivery services.










—


The Target includes UDG’s pharmaceutical wholesaling business in Ireland and the UK (comprising the United Drug Supply Chain Services business and the United Drug Sangers business); TCP, a healthcare services provider in Ireland; and MASTA, a travel healthcare business in the UK.














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.7818 — McKesson/UDG Healthcare (pharmaceutical wholesale and associated businesses), 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’).
Case T-443/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2016090EN.01001302.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/13





Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-443/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private life - Proportionality))
(2016/C 090/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14) in so far as that act concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 January 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Kosovo, of the other part (10725/2/2015 — C8-0328/2015 — 2015/0094(NLE))
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: EAEC, Kosovo, ratification of an agreement, stabilisation and association agreement








C_2018011EN.01015501.xml










12.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/155





P8_TA(2016)0017
EU-Kosovo Stabilisation and Association Agreement ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 January 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Kosovo, of the other part (10725/2/2015 — C8-0328/2015 — 2015/0094(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 011/24)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (10725/2/2015),










—


having regard to the draft Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and Kosovo, of the other part (10728/1/2015),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(i), and Article 218(7) and (8), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0328/2015),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0372/2015),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Kosovo.
Case T-846/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKeY) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark SPOKeY — Earlier Community word mark SPOOKY — Declaration of partial invalidity — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of evidence — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016136EN.01003202.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/32





Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKeY)
(Case T-846/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark SPOKeY - Earlier Community word mark SPOOKY - Declaration of partial invalidity - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of evidence - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 136/46)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Spokey sp. z o.o. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Zajfert and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leder Jaeger GmbH (Siegen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 (Case R 525/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Leder Jaeger GmbH and Spokey sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Spokey sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case T-75/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Rod Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark ROD — Earlier national figurative marks RODI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Earlier opposition proceedings — Rule 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2016090EN.01001602.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/16





Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Rod Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD)
(Case T-75/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark ROD - Earlier national figurative marks RODI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Earlier opposition proceedings - Rule 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2016/C 090/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH (Weiden in der Oberpfalz, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand and J. Biener, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rodi TR, SL, (Lleida, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2014 (Case R 281/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rodi TR, SL and Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Case T-20/16: Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Indeutsch International v OHIM — Crafts Americana (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, haberdashery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01003601.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/36





Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Indeutsch International v OHIM — Crafts Americana (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines)
(Case T-20/16)
(2016/C 106/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: D. Stone, D. Meale, A. Dykes, Solicitors and 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: Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines) — Community trade mark No 8 884 264

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1814/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


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





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-453/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer v Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 5 — Meaning of ‘equivalent benefits’ — Equal treatment of old-age benefits of two Member States of the European Economic Area — National legislation taking into account old-age benefits received in other Member States for the purpose of calculating social security contributions)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, pension scheme, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation








C_2016098EN.01001301.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/13





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer v Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg
(Case C-453/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 5 - Meaning of ‘equivalent benefits’ - Equal treatment of old-age benefits of two Member States of the European Economic Area - National legislation taking into account old-age benefits received in other Member States for the purpose of calculating social security contributions))
(2016/C 098/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

Respondent: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

Other party to the proceedings: Rudolf Mathis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, old-age benefits provided under an occupational pension scheme of one Member State and those provided under a statutory pension scheme of another Member State — both schemes being within the scope of that regulation — are equivalent benefits within the meaning of that provision, where both categories of benefits have the same aim of ensuring that their recipients maintain a standard of living commensurate with that which they enjoyed prior to retirement.


(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
Case T-802/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah. C) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Lenah.C — Earlier national word mark LEMA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01001601.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/16





Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah. C)
(Case T-802/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Lenah.C - Earlier national word mark LEMA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 090/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodriguez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics (Berlin, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2014 (Case R 2260/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern, S A and michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laboratorios Ern, S A to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case C-430/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Artūrs Stretinskis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Article 29(1)(d) — Determination of the customs value — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 143(1)(h) — Definition of ‘related persons’ for the purposes of determining the customs value — Kinship relationship between the buyer, a natural person, and the director of the company which sold the goods)
Date: 2016-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs union, customs valuation, family relationship, legal person, natural person








C_2016098EN.01001201.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/12





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Artūrs Stretinskis
(Case C-430/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Article 29(1)(d) - Determination of the customs value - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 143(1)(h) - Definition of ‘related persons’ for the purposes of determining the customs value - Kinship relationship between the buyer, a natural person, and the director of the company which sold the goods))
(2016/C 098/14)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: Artūrs Stretinskis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a buyer, who is a natural person, and a seller, which is a legal person, within which a kin of that buyer actually has the power to influence the sales price of goods for the benefit of that buyer, must be regarded as being related persons within the meaning of Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996.


(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.