do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-646/14: Order of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Micula and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, State aid, control of State aid, court of arbitration, international law, powers of the institutions (EU), restriction on competition








C_2016136EN.01004402.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/44





Order of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Micula and Others v Commission
(Case T-646/14) (1)

(2016/C 136/61)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
Case C-125/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, paramedical profession, principle of proportionality, public health, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment, single market








C_2016191EN.01001101.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina
(Case C-125/16)
(2016/C 191/13)
Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others

Defendants: Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

Questions referred







1.


Is the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, or their refusal to grant recognition to the profession of clinical dental technologists/denturists, whereby, despite the absence of discrimination in law, individuals from other Member States who have made an application in this respect are in practice precluded from establishing their profession in Malta, incompatible with the principles and the legal provisions regulating the creation of the single market, in particular those resulting from Articles 49 TFEU, 52 TFEU and 56 TFEU, in a situation where there is no risk to public health?










2.


Should Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, known as the Professional Qualifications Directive, be applied with respect to clinical dental technologists in view of the fact that, should a denture prove to be defective, the only consequence would be that the defective dental appliance would have to be modified or replaced, without any risk to the patient?










3.


Can the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, which is being contested in the present case, serve to ensure the aim of having a high level of public health protection, when any defective denture can be replaced without any risk to the patient?










4.


Does the way in which the defendant, the Superintendent of Public Health, interprets and enforces Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 with respect to clinical dental technologists who have applied for recognition by the same Maltese health authorities constitute an infringement of the principle of proportionality?






(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).
Case T-725/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, confidentiality, data protection, insecticide, legal basis, market approval, plant health control, rights of the defence, trade information








C_2016191EN.01003202.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/32





Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA
(Case T-725/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))
(2016/C 191/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chemtura Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, Agents, assisted by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the suspension of operation of the EFSA Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite 4-chloroaniline (PCA) in respect of which the applicant requested partial confidential treatment.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


The order of 15 December 2015 delivered in Case T-725/15 R is cancelled.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-270/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity of the infringement — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Settlement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, equal treatment, international cartel, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU)








C_2016136EN.01002801.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/28





Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) and Others v Commission
(Case T-270/12) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Settlement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
(2016/C 136/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd (Basle, Switzerland), Panalpina Management AG (Basle), Panalpina China Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis, T. Grimmer and B. Smith, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Meessen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and by C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG and Panalpina China Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Case T-254/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Kühne + Nagel International and Others v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final prices — Whether trade between Member States affected — Errors of assessment — Duration of the infringement — Amount of the fine — Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Mitigating circumstances — Proportionality — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, international cartel, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2016136EN.01002501.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/25





Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Kühne + Nagel International and Others v European Commission
(Case T-254/12) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final prices - Whether trade between Member States affected - Errors of assessment - Duration of the infringement - Amount of the fine - Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Mitigating circumstances - Proportionality - Rights of the defence))
(2016/C 136/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Kühne + Nagel International AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland), Kühne + Nagel Management AG (Feusisberg), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai, China), and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. Klöppner and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, N. von Lingen and G. Meessen, and subsequently by C. Hödlmayr, G. Meessen and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/296 of 29 February 2016 replacing a member of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU), General Court (EU), appointment of members, committee (EU), member of the Court of Justice (EU), professional qualifications








L_2016055EN.01001401.xml










2.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 55/14








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/296
of 29 February 2016
         
replacing a member of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 255 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,


Having regard to the initiative of the President of the Court of Justice of 27 January 2016,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a panel was set up in order to give an opinion on candidates' suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the Court of Justice and the General Court before the Governments of the Member States make the appointments (the ‘panel’).












(2)


By Decision 2014/76/EU (1), the Council appointed the seven members of the panel for a period of 4 years, ending on 28 February 2018.












(3)


By letter of 27 January 2016, the President of the Court of Justice informed the President of the Council that Mr Péter PACZOLAY had resigned from his functions as member of the panel with effect from 21 January 2016.












(4)


By the same letter of 27 January 2016, the President of the Court of Justice proposed the appointment of Mr Mirosław WYRZYKOWSKI to replace Mr Péter PACZOLAY for the remainder of his term, in accordance with point 3 of the operating rules of the panel as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/124/EU (2),





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Mirosław WYRZYKOWSKI is hereby appointed member of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for a period ending on 28 February 2018.


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




Done at Brussels, 29 February 2016.


For the Council


The President

H.G.J. KAMP
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/76/EU of 11 February 2014 appointing the members of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 41, 12.2.2014, p. 18).

(2)  Council Decision 2010/124/EU of 25 February 2010 relating to the operating rules of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 50, 27.2.2010, p. 18).
Case T-251/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — EGL and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price — Definition of the market — Effect on trade between Member States — Cooperation — Partial immunity from a fine)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, international cartel, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2016136EN.01002402.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/24





Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — EGL and Others v Commission
(Case T-251/12) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Definition of the market - Effect on trade between Member States - Cooperation - Partial immunity from a fine))
(2016/C 136/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: EGL, Inc. (Houston, Texas, United States), Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd (Ashby de la Zouch, United Kingdom) and Ceva Freight Shanghai Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented initially by M. Brealey QC, S. Love, Barrister, M. Pullen, D. Gillespie and R. Fawcett-Feuillette, Solicitors, and subsequently by M. Brealey, S. Love, M. Pullen, R. Fawcett-Feuillette and M. Boles, Solicitor, and lastly by M. Brealey and M. Pullen)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EGL, Inc., Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and Ceva Freight Shanghai Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
Case T-96/16: Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016156EN.01005301.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/53






Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)
(Case T-96/16)
(2016/C 156/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’ — Application for registration No 13 355 508

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 in Case R 613/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision insofar as it refuses the registration of EU trade mark application No 13 355 508 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2016078EN.01000101.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 078/01)

Last publication


OJ C 68, 22.2.2016


Past publications


OJ C 59, 15.2.2016


OJ C 48, 8.2.2016


OJ C 38, 1.2.2016


OJ C 27, 25.1.2016


OJ C 16, 18.1.2016


OJ C 7, 11.1.2016

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-128/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, hire purchase, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition, shipbuilding, tax system








C_2016156EN.01003101.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/31






Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission

(Case C-128/16 P)
(2016/C 156/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: the Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing, S.A.U. and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13;










—


remit the case to the General Court;










—


order the applicants to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







1.


The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the notions of ‘undertakings’ and ‘selective advantage’; in its interpretation and application of the duty to state reasons; and in its distortion of the contested decision as regards selectivity.






—


The General Court erred in law and distorted the decision in misinterpreting the selective nature of a tax advantage reserved for undertakings which pursue a particular economic activity and which were set up by the economic interest grouping (EIG) and their partners; and in incorrectly characterising the reasons given.










—


The General Court erred in law in its analysis of the selective advantage resulting from discretionary power on the part of the national tax authorities.










—


The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the notion of ‘selectivity’ by excluding selectivity with regard to a measure reserved for taxable persons making certain investments.














2.


The General Court erred in law and distorted the contested decision in interpreting and applying the duty to state reasons in relation to effects on competition and effects on trade in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.
Case C-124/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, charge, criminal proceedings, limitation of legal proceedings, national law, residence








C_2016260EN.01001502.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca
(Case C-124/16)
(2016/C 260/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Ianos Tranca
Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 2 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, even though the accused person does not subsequently have the benefit of the whole of the period for lodging an objection to that penalty order, but he also has no address at which the penalty order can verifiably be notified to him, and the nomination of a person authorised to accept service and in possession of an address enables him to keep the authorised person informed of where a penalty order can be sent to him with proof of notification?










2.


Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection?






(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).