do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 4 April 2016 concerning a draft decision relating to Case AT.39965(2) — Mushrooms — Rapporteur: France
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, foodstuff, market-sharing agreement, mushroom-growing, preserved product, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2017067EN.01000302.xml










3.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/3





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 4 April 2016 concerning a draft decision relating to Case AT.39965(2) — Mushrooms
Rapporteur: France
(2017/C 67/05)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the value of sales.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fine.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fine.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating/aggravating circumstances applicable in this case.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fine based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.










7.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the Inability to Pay request.










8.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.










9.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-475/15: Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the mark — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016200EN.01002201.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/22





Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)
(Case T-475/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the mark - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 200/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 1143/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH and L’Oréal SA.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


L’Oréal SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) (Settlement) — Amendment of fine imposed on Société Générale
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Euribor, European Economic Area, bank, euro, exchange of information, interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2017404EN.01000401.xml










29.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/4





Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) (Settlement)
Amendment of fine imposed on Société Générale
(2017/C 404/04)
Case AT.39914 concerns conduct related to derivatives denominated in euro and linked to certain interest rates (the Euro Interbank Offered Rate and/or the Euro Over-Night Index Average). In the context of this case, the Commission adopted Decision C(2013) 8512 final of 4 December 2013 (the ‘Settlement Decision’) pursuant to Article 10a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2), as amended (3). The Settlement Decision found that certain undertakings (4), among them Société Générale, participated in an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. It imposed a fine on Société Générale.
On 4 February 2016, Société Générale provided an amended response to a request by the Commission for information concerning Société Générale’s value of sales.
After verifying this amended response, the Commission, by letter dated 4 March 2016, gave Société Générale the opportunity of making known its views regarding the intention of the Commission services to propose a decision to the College of Commissioners that would, in order to reflect the corrected information provided by Société Générale, amend the fine originally imposed on it. Société Générale stated on 8 March 2016 that it had no comment on the proposed amendment of the Settlement Decision.
The draft decision does not modify the objections underlying the Settlement Decision. It deals only with fining matters, on which Société Générale has been given the opportunity to make known its views. I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has thus far been respected in the procedure relating to the draft decision.

Brussels, 4 April 2016.

Joos STRAGIER




(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

(3)  In particular by Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2008 of 30 June 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, as regards the conduct of settlement procedures in cartel cases (OJ L 171, 1.7.2008, p. 3).

(4)  Proceedings in Case AT.39914 are ongoing against certain other parties that did not opt for the settlement procedure set out in the abovementioned Article 10a.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 4 April 2016 concerning a draft decision relating to Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives — Rapporteur: France
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Euribor, European Economic Area, bank, euro, exchange of information, interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2017404EN.01000301.xml










29.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/3





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 4 April 2016 concerning a draft decision relating to Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives
Rapporteur: France
(2017/C 404/03)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees that the values of sales and the fine should be amended for the addressee.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.










4.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-145/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016222EN.01002202.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/22






Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)
(Case T-145/16)
(2016/C 222/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Laura Corsini Santolaria (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Molins Tura (Barcelona, Spain)

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 ‘biombo 13’ — Application for registration No 12 271 383

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 744/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety as regards Classes 25, 35 and 42 in respect of which registration is sought;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-188/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ionel Opria
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, charge, criminal proceedings, limitation of legal proceedings, national law, residence








C_2016260EN.01001601.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ionel Opria
(Case C-188/16)
(2016/C 260/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Ionel Opria
Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

Question referred

Must Article 2, Article 3(1)(c) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings against an accused person with no fixed domicile or residence in that Member State, a penalty order made against the accused can be served on a person appointed by him as being authorised to accept service on his behalf, with the result that the penalty order acquires the force of res judicata upon expiry of the (two-week) period for lodging an objection, which begins to run from the time of service on the authorised person, even where, in accordance with the legislation of that Member State, any such accused person who lodges a written objection against the penalty order with the court having jurisdiction within two weeks of actually becoming aware of that order must ex officio have his position restored to the status quo ante, with the result that, following the adoption of the decision to restore the status quo ante, proceedings must continue as they would in the case of an objection lodged in good time?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.
Case C-189/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, pension scheme, retirement conditions








C_2016211EN.01003401.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten
(Case C-189/16)
(2016/C 211/44)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck

Defendant: Pensionsmyndigheten

Questions referred







1.


Do the provisions in Article 47(1)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) mean that the insurance periods completed in another Member State, in the calculation of the Swedish guaranteed pension, can be given a pensionable value which corresponds to the average value of the Swedish periods where the competent authority undertakes a pro-rata calculation under Article 46(2) of that regulation?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the negative, may the competent institution, in its calculation of the entitlement to a guaranteed pension take account of pension income which an insured person receives in another Member State without that running counter to the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).
Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Mushrooms (Riberebro) (AT.39965)
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, foodstuff, market-sharing agreement, mushroom-growing, preserved product, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2017067EN.01000401.xml










3.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 67/4





Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Mushrooms (Riberebro)
(AT.39965)
(2017/C 67/06)
This case concerns an infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement consisting of price coordination and customer allocation for canned mushrooms throughout the EEA between 1 September 2010 and 28 February 2012. The Commission has already adopted, on 25 June 2014, a decision addressed to the eight legal entities (constituting three undertakings) which opted for the cartel settlement procedure (2). The present draft decision is addressed to Grupo Riberebro Integral S.L. and Riberebro Integral S.A.U. (together ‘Riberebro’), which did not introduce settlement submissions.
On 27 May 2015, the Commission adopted a statement of objections (‘SO’) against Riberebro, which was notified to Riberebro the following day. Riberebro was provided on 3 June 2015 with a CD-ROM containing the written documents of the Commission’s investigation file, and was granted a time limit of six weeks to reply to the SO.
In its response to the SO, Riberebro stated that it did not contest the description of the facts nor the legal assessment made by the Commission in the SO, but it made submissions as to the appropriate level of the fine. Riberebro did not request an oral hearing.
Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which Riberebro has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does.
In view of the above, and taking into account that Riberebro has not addressed any requests or complaints to me, I consider that the effective exercise of Riberebro’s procedural rights has been respected.

Brussels, 4 April 2016.

Wouter WILS




(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

(2)  See Commission Decision C(2014) 4227 final of 25 June 2014, Summary publication (OJ C 453, 17.12.2014, p. 21), and Final Report of the Hearing Officer (OJ C 453, 17.12.2014, p. 20).
Case T-141/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, civil code, contract terms, fruit, interest, national law, technological change








C_2016191EN.01003901.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/39





Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM
(Case T-141/16)
(2016/C 191/51)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune)

Defendant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action, brought before the General Court pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeks delivery of a judgment ordering the defendant to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 75 208,47, together with interest, in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544 for the project entitled ‘Development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’.
The European Commission pleads, as the principal legal basis, breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations. It submits in particular that the sum which was paid to the defendant pursuant to the contract at issue was not used to carry out any work relating to the contract and that the defendant has not adduced any relevant documentary evidence. In the alternative, the European Commission puts forward a claim of unjust enrichment of the defendant, as provided for in Articles 904 and 908 of the Civil Code.
Case T-143/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, computer equipment, data transmission, insurance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016191EN.01003902.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/39





Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)
(Case T-143/16)
(2016/C 191/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intesia Group Holding GmbH (Böblingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘INTESA’ — EU trade mark No 3 105 277

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 632/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the other parties to pay the costs of the present proceeding, as well as those of the EUIPO application for revocation and appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a) and 51(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-144/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA)
Date: 2016-04-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, scientific research, software, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2016191EN.01004001.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/40





Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA)
(Case T-144/16)
(2016/C 191/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Multipharma SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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: EU word mark ‘MULTIPHARMA’ — Application for registration No 9 537 887

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2016 in Case R 2950/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.