do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-160/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MINICARGO — Earlier Community word mark MINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, means of transport, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016145EN.01002702.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/27






Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)
(Case T-160/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MINICARGO - Earlier Community word mark MINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 145/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Developpement (Baud, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Delorey, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2015 (Case R 596/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and LG Developpement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LG Developpement to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
Case C-247/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for ‘cement and related products’ — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, cartel, cement, competition policy, restriction on competition








C_2016156EN.01000601.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission
(Case C-247/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))
(2016/C 156/06)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: HeidelbergCement AG (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and P. Pichler, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in HeidelbergCement v Commission (T-302/11, EU:T:2014:128);










2.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HeidelbergCement AG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-302/11 and the appeal.






(1)  
            OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Case F-152/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Kozak v Commission (Civil service — Open Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 — Decision of the selection board not to admit a candidate to sit tests at the assessment centre — Request for review — New decision of the selection board confirming its initial decision — Communication by EPSO of a reasoned reply — Purely confirmatory act — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU)








C_2016145EN.01003701.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/37






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Kozak v Commission
(Case F-152/15)
((Civil service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 - Decision of the selection board not to admit a candidate to sit tests at the assessment centre - Request for review - New decision of the selection board confirming its initial decision - Communication by EPSO of a reasoned reply - Purely confirmatory act - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 145/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Małgorzata Kozak (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Łojkowska-Paprocka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of EPSO not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage of Competition EPSO/AD/293/14.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Ms Kozak is to bear her own costs.
Corrigendum to Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, administrative contract, administrative transparency, approximation of laws, award of contract, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, supplies contract, works contract








L_2016063EN.01004401.xml










10.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 63/44







Corrigendum to Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts

(
Official Journal of the European Communities L 395 of 30 December 1989
)


On page 35, Article 5:
for:

               ‘Member States shall bring into force, before 1 December 1991,’,
read:

               ‘Member States shall bring into force, before 21 December 1991,’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016094EN.01000101.xml










10.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 March 2016
(2016/C 94/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0973




JPY


Japanese yen


123,63




DKK


Danish krone


7,4614




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77135




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2920




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0978




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3964




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,047




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,62




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3149




RON


Romanian leu


4,4637




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1902




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4650




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4705




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5216




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6192




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5171




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,63




ZAR


South African rand


16,8748




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1466




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5620




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 452,27




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5147




PHP


Philippine peso


51,417




RUB


Russian rouble


78,7670




THB


Thai baht


38,724




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0740




MXN


Mexican peso


19,5511




INR


Indian rupee


73,6840






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-53/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Curodont — Earlier national word mark Eurodont — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dental medicine, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016145EN.01002701.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/27






Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)
(Case T-53/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Curodont - Earlier national word mark Eurodont - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 145/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: credentis AG (Windisch, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Karlslunde K/S (Karlslunde, Denmark) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2014 (case R 353/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Karlslunde K/S and credentis AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders credentis AG to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
Case C-546/15: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, electrical equipment, electronic waste, environmental risk prevention, pollution control measures, sanction (EU), waste disposal, waste recycling








C_2016260EN.01003701.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/37





Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-546/15) (1)

(2016/C 260/45)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
Case C-38/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Collection and treatment systems — Discharges in sensitive areas — Monitoring methods — Collecting of samples)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: pollution control measures, waste recycling, wastewater, water pollution, water treatment








C_2016156EN.01001301.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/13






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-38/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Collection and treatment systems - Discharges in sensitive areas - Monitoring methods - Collecting of samples))
(2016/C 156/17)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, E. Manhaeve and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by, failing to provide adequately for the treatment of urban waste water discharged in sensitive areas and deriving from certain agglomerations, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, in relation to the agglomeration of Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu and, second, Article 5(2) and (3) of that directive, in relation to the agglomerations of Berga, Figueres, El Terri (Banyoles) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case C-268/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for ‘cement and related products’ — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative procedure, cartel, cement, competition policy, restriction on competition








C_2016156EN.01000702.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/7






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission
(Case C-268/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))
(2016/C 156/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Italmobiliare SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and L Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by M. Malaguti, avvocatessa)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Italmobiliare v Commission (T-305/11, EU:T:2014:126);










2.


Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 2364 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products);










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Italmobiliare SpA, both in the proceedings at first instance in Case T-305/11 and in the appeal proceedings.






(1)  
            OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
Case C-312/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Solsonica SpA, European Commission (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Provisional anti-dumping duty — Definitive anti-dumping duty — No need to adjudicate — Loss of interest in bringing proceedings)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, photovoltaic cell, semi-metal, solar collector, trade policy








C_2016200EN.01000301.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/3





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Solsonica SpA, European Commission
(Case C-312/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Provisional anti-dumping duty - Definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate - Loss of interest in bringing proceedings))
(2016/C 200/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Solsonica SpA, European Commission (represented by: J-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case C-499/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Interpretation — General Rules — Rule 3(b) — Definition of ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’ — Separate packages)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, customs union, goods and services, packaging, retail selling








C_2016156EN.01001201.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat
(Case C-499/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Interpretation - General Rules - Rule 3(b) - Definition of ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’ - Separate packages))
(2016/C 156/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those in the main proceedings, which are presented for customs clearance in separate packages and are packed together only after that transaction may nevertheless be held to be ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’, within the meaning of that rule and may, therefore, come under a single tariff heading, where it is established, having regard to other objective factors, which it is for the national court to assess, that the goods belong together as a unit and are intended to be presented as such in the retail trade.


(1)  
            OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Case C-248/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for ‘cement and related products’ — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative procedure, cartel, cement, competition policy, restriction on competition








C_2016156EN.01000602.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission
(Case C-248/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))
(2016/C 156/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Schwenk Zement KG (represented by: M. Raible and S. Merz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Schwenk Zement v Commission (T-306/11, EU:T:2014:123);










2.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schwenk Zement KG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-306/11 and the appeal.






(1)  
            OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7952 — Bridgepoint Group/Smyk Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: child, clothing industry, economic concentration, electronic commerce, investment company, merger control, retail selling, toy industry








C_2016094EN.01000701.xml










10.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7952 — Bridgepoint Group/Smyk Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 94/04)






1.


On 23 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 Bridgepoint Group Limited (United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control over the undertakings belonging to Smyk Group, namely the following companies: Kids International sp. z o.o. (Poland); Smyk All for Kids SRL (Romania); Madras Enterprises Limited (Cyprus); Prolex Services Ltd (Cyprus); Spiele Max Holding GmbH (Germany); E-Commerce Services sp. z o.o. (Poland); Paritet-Smyk LLC (Ukraine); LLC Smyk Rus (Russia); Spiele Max AG (Germany); Beteiligungs und Dienstleistungs GmbH (Germany); Smyk sp. z o.o. (Poland); Smyk Global Assets sp. z o.o. (Poland); Mexvet Enterprises Limited (Cyprus); and Smyk Global Assets GmbH (Switzerland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bridgepoint Group Limited: private equity company specialised in investments in European middle market companies active in a range of sectors including consumer/retail, business services, financial services, healthcare and media,
—   for Smyk Group: retail sale, including online sale, of products for children such as toys, children’s apparel and child/baby care products and accessories.










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.7952 — Bridgepoint Group/Smyk 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.