do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-281/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Scope — Recognition of a private divorce decision pronounced by a religious court in a third country — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Islamic law, Syria, divorce, equal treatment, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, matrimonial law, private international law








C_2016279EN.01000502.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/5





Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
(Case C-281/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Scope - Recognition of a private divorce decision pronounced by a religious court in a third country - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))
(2016/C 279/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Operative part of the order:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich, Germany) by decision of 2 June 2015.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-590/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Zuffa v EUIPO (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Distinctive character acquired through use — Obligation to state reasons — Relevant public — Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001101.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/11





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Zuffa v EUIPO (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)
(Case T-590/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Distinctive character acquired through use - Obligation to state reasons - Relevant public - Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 232/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and K. Gilbert and C. Balme, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1425/2013-2), regarding an application for registration of the sign ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1425/2013-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal of Zuffa, LLC as regards the following goods and services:






—


‘pre-recorded audio cassettes; phonograph records; compact discs; pre-recorded video cassettes; laser video discs; digital video discs; digital versatile discs; electronic storage media; USB flashdrives; CD-ROM discs all featuring mixed martial arts competitions, events and programs; motion picture films in the field of mixed martial arts’ in Class 9;










—


‘provision of information relating to mixed martial arts via communication and computer networks; providing news and information in the fields of sports, fitness and mixed martial arts via communication and computer networks’ in Class 41;














2.


Dismisses the present action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Zuffa, LLC and EUIPO to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15) v Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 53(2) — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Purely internal situation — Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, right of establishment, security services








C_2016279EN.01000802.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/8





Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15) v Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)
(Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 53(2) - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Purely internal situation - Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction))
(2016/C 279/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15)

Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decisions of 12 November 2015.


(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Case T-232/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-3/15, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016243EN.01004401.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/44





Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-3/15, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission
(Case T-232/16 P)
(2016/C 243/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jürgen Frieberger (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Benjamin Vallin (Saint-Gilles, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-3/15, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal held the fourth plea in law to be well founded;










—


as regards the proceedings at first instance, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that the state of proceedings permitted it to give final judgment, dismiss the action as unfounded and order the appellants to pay the costs;










—


as regards the appeal proceedings, order the parties to bear their own costs relating to those proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds of appeal.






1.


First ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the arguments raised at first instance and an infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita.










2.


Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Article 26(5) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.










3.


Third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the notion of transfer of pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.










4.


Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.










5.


Fifth ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8012 — HAL Investments/Coolblue) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronic commerce, merger control, retail trade








C_2016171EN.01000801.xml










12.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8012 — HAL Investments/Coolblue)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 171/09)






1.


On 3 May 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 HAL Investments B.V. (‘HAL’, the Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the undertaking Coolblue Beheer B.V. (‘Coolblue’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for HAL: an investment company active in a variety of sectors including media, financial services, building supplies and the maritime sector,
—   for Coolblue: an online retailer offering a variety of consumer electronics, including computers and electrical household appliances, in the Netherlands and Belgium.










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.8012 — HAL Investments/Coolblue, 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 T-239/16: Action brought on 12 May 2016 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mineral water, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01004701.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/47





Action brought on 12 May 2016 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage)
(Case T-239/16)
(2016/C 243/53)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Polskie Zdroje sp. z o.o. sp. k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘perlage’ — application for registration no 13 472 899

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 in Case R 1129/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-669/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Action for damages — Default interest — Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence — Lack of legal basis — Article 266 TFEU — Causal link)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, competition policy, damages, industrial product, interest, market-sharing agreement, packaging product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2016232EN.01001202.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/12





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission
(Case T-669/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Action for damages - Default interest - Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence - Lack of legal basis - Article 266 TFEU - Causal link))
(2016/C 232/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: T. Pettersson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, L. Parpala and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 3 July 2014 in case COMP/38.354 (Industrial bags — Trioplast Industrier AB) and, secondly, for damages under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Case T-298/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Atlas v EUIPO (EFEKT PERLENIA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark EFEKT PERLENIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adhesive, building insulation, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001802.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/18





Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Atlas v EUIPO (EFEKT PERLENIA)
(Case T-298/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EFEKT PERLENIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 232/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Atlas sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2015 (Case R 2352/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EFEKT PERLENIA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Case F-51/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2016 — FR v EASA
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damage, damages, probationary period, servant (EU), unfair dismissal








C_2016232EN.01003701.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/37





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2016 — FR v EASA
(Case F-51/15) (1)

(2016/C 232/47)
Language of the case: English
The Judge ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 190, 8/6/2015, p. 37.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7979 — Gilde/Royal Reesink) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, mechanical engineering, medium-sized industry, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2016171EN.01000101.xml










12.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7979 — Gilde/Royal Reesink)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 171/01)
On 29 April 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.










—


In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7979. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/712 of 12 May 2016 amending Decision 2014/486/CFSP on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU police mission, Ukraine, technical cooperation




L_2016125EN.01001101.xml










13.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/11








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/712
of 12 May 2016
         
amending Decision 2014/486/CFSP on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 July 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/486/CFSP (1).












(2)


Decision 2014/486/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2015/2249 (2), provided EUAM Ukraine with a reference amount until 30 November 2016 and a mandate until 30 November 2017.












(3)


The reference amount should be adapted and Decision 2014/486/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 14(1) of Decision 2014/486/CFSP is replaced by the following:


‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUAM Ukraine until 30 November 2014 shall be EUR 2 680 000. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUAM Ukraine for the period from 1 December 2014 to 30 November 2015 shall be EUR 13 100 000. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUAM Ukraine for the period from 1 December 2015 to 30 November 2016 shall be EUR 17 670 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.’.




Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 12 May 2016.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/486/CFSP of 22 July 2014 on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2249 of 3 December 2015 amending Decision 2014/486/CFSP on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (OJ L 318, 4.12.2015, p. 38).
Case F-102/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — FS v EESC (Civil service — Temporary staff — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of every person to have access to his or her file — Access to documents concerning an attempt at mediation — Attempt at mediation initiated by the current president of the EESC and conducted under the auspices of a former president of the EESC — Right of access to the report drawn up at the end of the mediation procedure — Administrative investigation opened after the mediation procedure — Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2016-05-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative procedure, indemnification, mediator, right to information, right to justice, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2016222EN.01003801.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/38






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — FS v EESC
(Case F-102/15) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of every person to have access to his or her file - Access to documents concerning an attempt at mediation - Attempt at mediation initiated by the current president of the EESC and conducted under the auspices of a former president of the EESC - Right of access to the report drawn up at the end of the mediation procedure - Administrative investigation opened after the mediation procedure - Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations))
(2016/C 222/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, M. Pascua Mateo, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the EESC rejecting the application for access to documents made by the applicant and an application for compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly incurred.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 19 November 2014 of the president of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in so far as it notifies the refusal to communicate to FS a report concerning her, drawn up by a former president of the EESC at the request of the current president of the EESC;










2.


Declares the claims for annulment to be redundant as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to pay FS a sum of EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm she has suffered;










4.


Declares that the European Economic and Social Committee is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by FS.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14/9/2015, p. 70.