do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-88/16: Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016136EN.01004101.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/41





Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
(Case T-88/16)
(2016/C 136/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, A. Smith and D. Meale, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2015 in Case R 2387/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that two members of the Board who took the original 2014 Board of Appeal decision (and the June 2015 Board of Appeal revocation decision) were also members of the Board that took the contested decision;










—


Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before EUIPO at the first hearing of the opposition;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
Case C-122/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by British Airways plc against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11: British Airways plc v European Commission
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: additional duty, air transport, carriage of goods, cartel, control of restrictive practices, international cartel, legality, price agreement, right to justice








C_2016191EN.01000901.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/9





Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by British Airways plc against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11: British Airways plc v European Commission
(Case C-122/16 P)
(2016/C 191/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: British Airways plc (represented by: J. Turner QC, R. O'Donoghue, Barristers, A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it limits the scope of the annulment of the contested European Commission Decision to the form of order sought by British Airways in its original application for annulment;










—


set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment;










—


annul the contested European Commission Decision in full; and










—


award British Airways the costs of the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present application British Airways plc is seeking to have partially set aside the decision of the General Court rendered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11, British Airways plc v European Commission. The Judgment partly annulled the Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 in Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight, in so far as it concerns British Airways.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, that the General Court erred in law by applying the concept of ultra petita to constrain its actions even when the General Court had of its own motion found there to be fundamental public policy defects which vitiated the European Commission’s Decision entirely. By raising a public policy issue of its own motion, and by deciding the case before it on that basis, the General Court did not rule ultra petita; the General Court therefore erred in law in considering itself restricted by ultra petita when it came to deciding on the consequences of its ruling in the operative part of its judgment.










2.


Second plea in law, that alternatively, even if the principle of ultra petita was engaged, the General Court should have held that it was nonetheless free — indeed obliged — to annul the contested Decision entirely in order to give effect to its conclusions that there was a defect in the contested Decision which violated superior norms of law, namely the principles of legality and of effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights.
Communication from the Commission regarding the start of the functioning of the Advisory Council for Aquaculture, of the Advisory Council for Markets and of the Advisory Council for the Black Sea
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Black Sea, advisory committee (EU), aquaculture, common fisheries policy, fishery management, operation of the Institutions








C_2016074EN.01000101.xml










26.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/1





Communication from the Commission regarding the start of the functioning of the Advisory Council for Aquaculture, of the Advisory Council for Markets and of the Advisory Council for the Black Sea
(2016/C 74/01)
Article 43(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (1) establishes four new Advisory Councils, including one for aquaculture, one for markets and one for the Black Sea.
In line with Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242 of 9 October 2014 laying down detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (2), stakeholders interested in the setting up of three new Advisory Councils for aquaculture, markets and the Black Sea respectively, have submitted to the Commission joint applications concerning the start of the functioning of each of the three Advisory Councils referred to above.
The Commission has verified the compatibility of the joint applications with the relevant EU rules and subsequently transmitted them to the Member States concerned who needed to determine whether the applications were signed by representative sector organisations and other interest groups.
Member States concerned did not raise any objection within the deadline of one month set in Article 3(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242.
In conclusion, the Advisory Councils for aquaculture, for markets and for the Black Sea can start functioning and become eligible for Union financial assistance in line with Annex III of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 in the form of an annual contribution covering a part of their operational costs from the day following the publication of this Communication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22.

(2)  OJ L 41, 17.2.2015, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7906 — Equistone Partners Europe/Mecaplast Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2016074EN.01002301.xml










26.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7906 — Equistone Partners Europe/Mecaplast Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 74/09)






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 Equistone Partners Europe SAS (‘EPE’, France) controlled by Equistone LLP (United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Financière Mecaplast SAS (‘Financière Mecaplast’, France) and indirectly of its 100 % held subsidiary Mecaplast SAM (‘Mecaplast’, France) and all of the latter’s subsidiaries, together the ‘Mecaplast Group’ by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Mecaplast Group is active in the manufacture and supply of automotive components,










—


EPE is an investment firm mainly active in medium-sized companies, with a portfolio spanning in a number of industries.














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 M.7906 — Equistone Partners Europe/Mecaplast Group, 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.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/328 of 26 February 2016 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Carciofo Spinoso di Sardegna (PDO)]
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, designation of origin, labelling, perennial vegetable, product designation








L_2016062EN.01000401.xml










9.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 62/4








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/328
of 26 February 2016
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Carciofo Spinoso di Sardegna (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Carciofo Spinoso di Sardegna’, registered under Commission Regulation (EU) No 94/2011 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Carciofo Spinoso di Sardegna’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 February 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 94/2011 of 3 February 2011 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Carciofo Spinoso di Sardegna (PDO)] (OJ L 30, 4.2.2011, p. 21).

(3)  
            OJ C 351, 23.10.2015, p. 24.
Case C-114/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 February 2016 — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, tax collection, tax inspection, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2016211EN.01002501.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 February 2016 — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
(Case C-114/16)
(2016/C 211/31)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft.

Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Question referred

Are the provisions of Articles 167, 168, 178 and 179 of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted to the effect that the revenue authority is required to recognise, in the course of a tax audit, a taxable person’s right of deduction in circumstances in which, although there is no indication in the taxable person’s VAT return of the tax paid, the taxable person possesses invoices consistent with that directive and, during the audit, requests recognition of its right of deduction?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-127/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by SNCF Mobilités (SNCF) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-242/12 SNCF v Commission
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, award of contract, control of State aid, invitation to tender, rail transport, reimbursement of aid








C_2016145EN.01002502.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/25






Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by SNCF Mobilités (SNCF) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-242/12 SNCF v Commission

(Case C-127/16 P)
(2016/C 145/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: SNCF Mobilités (SNCF) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard, G. Fabre and V. Landes, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the appeal admissible and well founded;










—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Case T-242/12 Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v Commission;










—


order the Commission to pay all of the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on several grounds in support of its appeal.
First, it submits, in distorting the provisions of Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 decision relating to the en bloc disposal of Sernam’s assets, the General Court committed several errors of law and failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons.
Second, it submits, in holding that the requirements of openness and transparency applicable to the call for tenders required by Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 decision necessarily presupposed that the selected candidate must have participated in the tender procedure as a candidate and in an autonomous capacity from the outset, the General Court erred in law.
Third, it submits, in holding that the tender of the Sernam management team was much more unfavourable to the vendor than the preliminary tenders of the other candidates, the General Court distorted the facts and erred in law.
Fourth, it submits, in holding that the Commission had not confused the purpose and the price of the en bloc sale of Sernam’s assets, the General Court erred in law, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and ruled on the basis of contradictory reasoning.
Fifth, it submits, in holding that the entry in the liabilities of the liquidation account of Sernam S.A. in the amount corresponding to the aid of EUR 41 million did not comply with Article 4 of the Sernam 2 decision, the General Court erred in law and distorted the operative part of the Sernam 2 decision.
Sixth, it submits, in holding that the private investor principle was not applicable to the en bloc disposal of Sernam’s assets, the General Court erred in law, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and distorted the operative part of the Sernam 2 decision.
Case T-681/13: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016145EN.01002801.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/28






Order of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)
(Case T-681/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 145/35)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Colomer Italy SpA (Sala Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Ricolfi, F. Tarocco and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Farmaca International SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: M. Caramelli and S. Fierro, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2013 (Case R 1186/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Farmaca International SpA and Colomer Italy SpA.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Colomer Italy SpA and Farmaca International SpA are ordered to bear their own costs and, each of them, half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  
            OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7964 — Recruit Holdings/USG People) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advertising, economic concentration, employment service, merger control, temporary employment agency








C_2016074EN.01002401.xml










26.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7964 — Recruit Holdings/USG People)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 74/10)






1.


On 19 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 Recruit Holdings Co., Ltd (‘Recruit’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking USG People N.V. (‘USG’, the Netherlands), by way of a public tender offer.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Recruit: provision of marketing media, human resources media and employment services,
—   for USG: provision of temporary employment services, permanent placement services and other HR related services.










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 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 M.7964 — Recruit Holdings/USG People, 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.
Case C-113/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
Date: 2016-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural real estate, family relationship, national, right of establishment, tenant farming








C_2016211EN.01002401.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
(Case C-113/16)
(2016/C 211/30)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Günter Horváth

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Questions referred







1.


Does legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings create a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?










2.


Having regard to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are nationals of the Member State concerned affected to the same extent as nationals of the other Member States by legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?