do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-267/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2016 – Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff v The Hon. Gilbert Licudi QC MP Minister for Justice
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Gibraltar, application of EU law, arms trade, firearms and munitions, free movement of goods, hunting








C_2016260EN.01003201.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2016 – Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff v The Hon. Gilbert Licudi QC MP Minister for Justice
(Case C-267/16)
(2016/C 260/40)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of Gibraltar

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff

Defendant: The Hon. Gilbert Licudi QC MP Minister for Justice

Questions referred







1.


If the EFP provisions in the Directive (1) concern only the free movement of goods, can they nonetheless apply to Gibraltar on the basis that they do not involve a trade or commercial transaction and are therefore outside the scope of the derogations granted to Gibraltar under the 1972 Act of Accession?










2.


Are the provisions of the Directive concerning the EFP, as regards hunters and sports target shooters, applicable to Gibraltar on the ground that they concern the free movement of services?










3.


Are the provisions of the Directive concerning the EFP, as regards hunters and sports target shooters, invalid on the ground that they concern the free movement of persons and have therefore been adopted under the wrong legal basis?






(1)  Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

OJ L 256, p. 51
Case C-269/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, freedom to provide services, lawyer, legal aid, remuneration of work, right of establishment, social-security benefit, wage determination








C_2016279EN.01001701.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
(Case C-269/16)
(2016/C 279/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 6(1)(d) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) applicable to situations in which a trader’s fees are regulated by a legal provision? If so, must Directive 2005/29/EC be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that contained in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, under which the fee regime established by statute is mandatory, even though the trader fails to give information or gives misleading information concerning the calculation of the price for his services?










2.


Must Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which makes the remuneration of lawyers who provide legal aid services, if the application is upheld, subject to a scale of fees previously approved by those lawyers, from which the authorities of the Member State may not depart?
Does that rule satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality to which Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) refers?










3.


Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which obliges the … [beneficiaries] of the right to legal aid, if their action succeeds and no order for costs is made, to pay the lawyer the fees determined in accordance with scales approved by a professional body amounting to more than 50 % of the annual amount of a social security benefit?






(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(2)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).
Council Decision (EU) 2016/814 of 13 May 2016 appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Austria, European Committee of the Regions, appointment of members








L_2016133EN.01000801.xml










24.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 133/8








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/814
of 13 May 2016
         
appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Republic of Austria, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.












(2)


An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Elisabeth VITOUCH,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Mag. Muna DUZDAR, Abgeordnete zum Wiener Landtag und Mitglied des Gemeinderats der Stadt Wien.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 13 May 2016.


For the Council


The President

E.M.J. PLOUMEN
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7956 — Johnson Controls/Tyco International) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control








C_2016172EN.01004001.xml










13.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/40





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7956 — Johnson Controls/Tyco International)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 172/09)






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 Johnson Controls Inc. (‘JCI’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the undertaking Tyco International plc (‘Tyco’, Ireland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for JCI: a global diversified technology and industrial company active in the business segments of building efficiency, automotive parts and power solutions,
—   for Tyco: a global provider of fire, security and life safety products and services.










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.7956 — Johnson Controls/Tyco International, 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-247/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka and others v ECB
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, bank, banking supervision, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade licence








C_2016270EN.01005101.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/51





Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka and others v ECB
(Case T-247/16)
(2016/C 270/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB's decision dated 3 March 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and










—


order the defendant to pay all costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognise the availability of alternative measures.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation (1) and committed a détournement de pouvoir.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, Art. 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation (2) and the right to a fair administrative procedure.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013, L 287, p. 63)

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014, L 141, p. 1)
Case T-62/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON — Earlier EU figurative mark mito — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01001801.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/18





Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON)
(Case T-62/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON - Earlier EU figurative mark mito - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 232/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2014 (Case R 508/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA, and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7861 — Dell/EMC) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, information technology industry, merger control








C_2016172EN.01000101.xml










13.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7861 — Dell/EMC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 172/01)
On 29 February 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 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 32016M7861. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/766 of 13 May 2016 establishing a temporary prohibition of fishing for redfish in NAFO 3M area by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU Member State, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2016127EN.01000401.xml










18.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 127/4








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2016/766
of 13 May 2016
         
establishing a temporary prohibition of fishing for redfish in NAFO 3M area by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 (2) lays down quotas for 2016.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the European Union have exhausted the mid-term quota allocated for the period before 1 July 2016.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit directed fishing activities for that stock until 30 June 2016,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member States referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for the period from 1 January 2016 until 30 June 2016 included shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Directed fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member States referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex until 30 June 2016 included.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 May 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (OJ L 22, 28.1.2016, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


01/TQ72




Member state


European Union (All Member States)




Stock


RED/N3M




Species


Redfish (Sebastes spp.)




Zone


NAFO 3M




Closing date


23.2.2016 till 30.6.2016
Case C-271/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-270/12: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd and Others v European Commission
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, equal treatment, international cartel, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU)








C_2016243EN.01002701.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/27





Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-270/12: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd and Others v European Commission
(Case C-271/16 P)
(2016/C 243/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis, A. Gamble, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested judgment, insofar as it dismisses the Appellants’ first plea in respect of the infringements;










—


vary Articles 2(2) and 2(3) of the Decision of 28 March 2012 in case COMP/39462 – Freight Forwarding (the ‘Decision’) insofar as those provisions concern the Appellants and, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fines imposed on the Appellants; and










—


in any event, order the Commission to pay its own costs and the Appellants’ costs in connection with these proceedings and those before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

When satisfying itself that the Commission did not depart from its decision-making practice, make an error of law, or infringe the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, the General Court erred in law by manifestly exceeding the limits of a reasonable assessment of the evidence before it and misapplying relevant case law. The Appellants’ specific pleas in law are as follows:






1.


That the General Court erred in law by manifestly exceeding the limits of a reasonable assessment of the evidence as to whether the infringements in question, and the AMS and CAF infringements in particular, related to the entirety of the freight forwarding ‘package of services’.










2.


That the General Court erred in law by not applying the case law principle that, for an infringement related to a component of a product or service, the Commission should only take into account sales attributable to that component.
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2016-05-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, anti-dumping duty, chemical compound, import (EU), originating product








C_2016172EN.01000801.xml










13.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/8





Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2016/C 172/05)
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.
This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2).









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Zeolite A powder


Bosnia and Herzegovina


Anti-dumping duty
Undertaking


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ L 125, 14.5.2011, p. 1)
Commission Decision 2011/279/EU (OJ L 125, 14.5.2011, p. 26)


15.5.2016






(1)  OJ C 280, 25.8.2015, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.