do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-380/15: Order of the Court of 23 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)) — Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court hearing the case — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, application of EU law, jurisdiction, mortgage, right to justice








C_2016200EN.01000401.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/4





Order of the Court of 23 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)) — Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL
(Case C-380/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Powers of the national court hearing the case - Failure to implement EU law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
(2016/C 200/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín

Defendants: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions submitted by the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands, Spain) by decision of 1 July 2015.


(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Case C-110/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 February 2016 — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, equal treatment, outsourcing, public contract, restriction on competition








C_2016175EN.01001001.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 February 2016 — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa
(Case C-110/16)
(2016/C 175/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Lg Costruzioni Srl

Respondent: Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

Questions referred

Is a provision such as that in Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 16 April 2006, which allows participation by an undertaking with a ‘named’ design engineer who, since he is not himself a tenderer, may not, according to national case-law, rely on the capacity of others, compatible with Article 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004? (1)



(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
Case T-86/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Codorníu v EUIPO — Bodegas Altun (ANA DE ALTUN)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, white wine








C_2016136EN.01004001.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/40





Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Codorníu v EUIPO — Bodegas Altun (ANA DE ALTUN)
(Case T-86/16)
(2016/C 136/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Codorníu SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Altun, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ANA DE ALTUN’ — Application for registration No 11 860 913

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 199/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings, should that party intervene, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Joined Cases T-279/15 to T-282/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads and Others) (Community design — Community design representing tyre treads and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels — Failure to apply for renewal of the design and cancellation of the design upon expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum and application for renewal of the design)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, pneumatic tyre








C_2016136EN.01003401.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/34





Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads and Others)
(Joined Cases T-279/15 to T-282/15) (1)

((Community design - Community design representing tyre treads and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels - Failure to apply for renewal of the design and cancellation of the design upon expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum and application for renewal of the design))
(2016/C 136/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Re:

Four actions brought against the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 (Cases R 1285/2014-3 and R 1286/2014-3) and of 11 February 2015 (Cases R 1287/2014-3 and R 1288/2014-3) relating to applications for retitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Pirelli Tyre SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7913 — Allianz/Spar/Fischapark) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, foodstuff, holding company, insurance, merger control, real estate business, shopping centre, sports equipment








C_2016069EN.01000102.xml










23.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7913 — Allianz/Spar/Fischapark)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 69/02)
On 18 February 2016, 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 the German 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 32016M7913. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Action brought on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/16)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, bond, financial control, financial legislation, guarantee, infringement of EU law








C_2016347EN.01003401.xml










22.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/34





Action brought on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-2/16)
(2016/C 347/06)
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer, represented by Antonius Falkner, Attorney-at-law, Lettstrasse 18, FL-9490 Vaduz.
The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:






1.


Annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015, and










2.


Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The applicant, Dr Gerhard Spitzer, is an Austrian citizen, domiciled in South Africa, which has been a customer of LLB AG, a company under majority ownership of the Principality of Liechtenstein, since the early 1990s.










—


The case concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close a case regarding a complaint against Liechtenstein concerning a failure to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC.










—


The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority was under the duty to initiate a formal investigation procedure concerning a failure by Liechtenstein to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC, and by failing to do so, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has infringed the rights of the applicant.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016069EN.01000201.xml










23.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 February 2016
(2016/C 69/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1026




JPY


Japanese yen


124,85




DKK


Danish krone


7,4620




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78243




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3572




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1008




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4930




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,84




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3646




RON


Romanian leu


4,4767




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2512




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5322




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5128




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5679




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6521




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5469




KRW


South Korean won


1 351,19




ZAR


South African rand


16,8486




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1909




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6300




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 824,67




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6171




PHP


Philippine peso


52,517




RUB


Russian rouble


83,4916




THB


Thai baht


39,418




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3755




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9350




INR


Indian rupee


75,5948






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7918 — Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque Polyester) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016069EN.01000301.xml










23.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7918 — Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque Polyester)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 69/04)






1.


On 16 February 2016 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 Indorama Netherlands B.V. ultimately controlled by Canopus International Ltd (‘Indorama’, Mauritius) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Guadarranque Polyester S.L.U. (‘Guadarranque’, Spain) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Indorama: production of purified tereohthalic acid (PTA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) products, PET resin and other polyester products,
—   Guadarranque: production of PTA, purified isophthalic acid (PIA) and PET products.










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 M.7918 — Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque Polyester, 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-82/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016136EN.01003801.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/38





Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
(Case T-82/16)
(2016/C 136/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, A. Alpera Plazas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE EVOLUTION’ — Application for registration No 11 968 138

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 in Case R 725/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


admit the application;










—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order the registration of the EU mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION in all the goods and services it seeks protection;










—


order EUIPO and/or the opponent to bear the fees and costs.





Plea in law







—


The Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the confronted signs.
Women refugees and asylum seekers in the EU : International Women's Day 2016.
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, political asylum, refugee, woman

Q

A

-

0

1

-

1

6

-

1

0

0

-

E

N

-

J

WOMEN REFUGEES AND 
ASYLUM SEEKERS IN THE EU
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY 2016

y
n
g
i
r
o
D
e
i
r
a
M

:

o
t
o
h
P

 
 
 
Q
A
-
0
1
-
1
6
-
1
0
0
-
E
N
-
J
Case T-80/16: Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disease prevention, drugs classification, market approval, medicinal product








C_2016136EN.01003701.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/37





Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA
(Case T-80/16)
(2016/C 136/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, M. Birdling, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Cowlishaw, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency dated 15 December 2015 and communicated to the applicant on 18 December 2015 refusing to validate an application pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) for designation as an orphan medicinal product; and










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in its interpretation and application of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000. The applicant contends that the defendant:






—


misapplied Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 by failing to appreciate the procedural nature of the validation process;










—


should not have concluded that the conditions for designation were not (or could not be) established;










—


erroneously elided the concepts of ‘medicinal product’ and ‘active substance’ contrary to Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000;










—


misapplied and erroneously relied upon the communication from the European Commission on Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (2);










—


erroneously placed reliance on the fact that the applicant had previously received protocol assistance pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000; and










—


frustrated the objective of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 as identified by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and its recitals.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

(2)  Communication (2003/C 178/02) from the Commission on Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2003 C 178, p. 2).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7929 — Mitsubishi Corporation/KKR/South Staffordshire Plc) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, water supply








C_2016069EN.01000101.xml










23.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7929 — Mitsubishi Corporation/KKR/South Staffordshire Plc)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 69/01)
On 17 February 2016, 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 32016M7929. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-761/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark MANGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01003001.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/30





Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)

(Case T-761/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark MANGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 118/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Consolidated Artists BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Corne, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Body Cosmetics International GmbH (Willich, Germany) (represented by: M. Müller-Mergenthaler, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2337/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Body Cosmetics International GmbH and Consolidated Artists BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Consolidated Artists BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.