do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-732/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Consumer protection — Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: citrus fruit, consumer protection, food contamination, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue








C_2016175EN.01001602.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/16





Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission
(Case T-732/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Environment - Consumer protection - Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
(2016/C 175/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa); ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City); and ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Crespi, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-97/16: Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, scientific research, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016145EN.01003302.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/33






Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK)
(Case T-97/16)
(2016/C 145/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Martin Kasztantowicz (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Ronneburger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gbb Group Ltd (Letchworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GEOTEK’ — Application for registration No 5 772 975

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2015 in Case R 3025/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 26 September 2014 (Cancellation Decision No 9014 C);










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Rules 57 and 65 of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Decision No EX-11-3 of the President of the Office.
Case C-121/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, domestic market, freight rate, national law, operating cost, provision of services, restriction on competition, road transport, transport safety








C_2016200EN.01000502.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio
(Case C-121/16)
(2016/C 200/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Salumificio Murru SpA

Defendant: Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that provided for in Article 83bis(10) of Legislative Decree 112/2008, in so far as the price of road haulage services on behalf of third parties may not be lower than minimum operating costs determined by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and is not left to be freely determined by the contracting parties?










2.


In the light of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s status of public authority, may the competition rules in the internal market be restricted by the national legislation in order to pursue the aim of maintaining road safety?
Case C-120/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A. v Juan José González Rey and Others
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract terms, interest, loan








C_2016175EN.01001101.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A. v Juan José González Rey and Others
(Case C-120/16)
(2016/C 175/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A.

Defendants: Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey and Francisco Rodríguez Alonso

Question referred

Is the use of an agreed remunerative interest rate in a situation in which default interest is applicable in accordance with Directive 93/13 (1) or, on the contrary, does it presuppose an amendment of the contract which is not permitted under EU case-law?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-265/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Schenker 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 — Evidence contained in an application for immunity — Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients — Code of Conduct rules on duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation — Fiduciary duties — Whether trade between Member States affected — Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed — Choice of companies — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Equal treatment — Cooperation — Settlement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2016-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, cartel, equal treatment, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality, professional ethics, sanction (EU)








C_2016136EN.01002701.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/27





Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Schenker v Commission
(Case T-265/12) (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 - Evidence contained in an application for immunity - Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients - Code of Conduct rules on duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation - Fiduciary duties - Whether trade between Member States affected - Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed - Choice of companies - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Settlement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
(2016/C 136/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Schenker Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Montag, B. Kacholdt and F. Hoseinian, lawyers, and by D. Colgan and T. Morgan, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Dawes and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by A. Dawes and G. Meessen, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly and H. Mussa, Barristers)

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 applicant, and for variation of the fine imposed on it in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Schenker Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.