do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-295/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Europamur Alimentación, S.A. v Dirección General de Consumo, Comercio y Artesanía de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, consumer protection, national law, perishable goods, reduced price, restriction on competition, retail trade, selling at a loss, wholesale trade








C_2016305EN.01001501.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Europamur Alimentación, S.A. v Dirección General de Consumo, Comercio y Artesanía de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia
(Case C-295/16)
(2016/C 305/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Europamur Alimentación, S.A.

Defendant: Dirección General de Consumo, Comercio y Artesanía de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 14 of Law 7/1996 of 15 January 1996 regulating retail commerce (Ley 7/1996, de 15 de enero, de Ordenación del Comercio Minorista), which is stricter than the directive in question in that it contains an initial prohibition, which also covers wholesalers, on selling at a loss, treating such a practice as an infringement of administrative law and therefore imposing a penalty in respect of it, account being taken of the fact that, in addition to regulating the market, the Spanish legislation is intended to protect the interests of consumers?










2.


Must Directive 2005/29/EC be interpreted as precluding Article 14 of Law 7/1996 even though that provision of national law permits selling at a loss to be excluded from the general prohibition where (i) the infringing party shows that the objective of selling at a loss was to match the prices of one or more competitors with the ability materially to affect that party’s sales or (ii) the sale involves perishable goods which will shortly be unfit for use?






(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 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Case T-422/15 and 423/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — U-R LAB v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union figurative and word marks THE DINING EXPERIENCE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01003201.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/32





Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — U-R LAB v EUIPO
(Case T-422/15 and 423/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union figurative and word marks THE DINING EXPERIENCE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 243/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: U-R LAB (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J.Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2015 (Cases R 2541/2014 4 and R 2542/2014 4) concerning applications for registration of, first, the figurative sign and, secondly, the word sign THE DINING EXPERIENCE as European Union trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Joins Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 for the purposes of the present judgment;










2.


Dismisses the actions;










3.


Orders U-R LAB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by Hungary of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, action programme, air quality, environmental policy, industrial pollution, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, waste incineration








C_2016190EN.01000601.xml










28.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/6





Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by Hungary of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
(2016/C 190/06)
On 25 May 2016, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2016) 3011 on the notification by Hungary of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (1).
This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee


(1)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.
Case C-293/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Sharda Europe, B.V.B.A. v Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro, S.A.
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, plant health legislation, use of languages








C_2016305EN.01001401.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Sharda Europe, B.V.B.A. v Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro, S.A.
(Case C-293/16)
(2016/C 305/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Cuarta

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Sharda Europe, B.V.B.A.

Respondents: Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


As there is divergence between the different language versions of Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC (1) of 1 July 2008 and a possible discrepancy with Recital 7 of the preamble to the Directive, the following question is referred to the Court of Justice:
Is the date 31 December 2008 in Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008, in its Spanish version, to be understood as the expiry of the deadline for the Member States to carry out a re-evaluation, or as the final date for inclusion in the list in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) of the active substances which must be re-evaluated, or as the final day for submitting the corresponding application for inclusion?










2.


Is the expression ‘by 31 December 2008 at the latest’ in Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/69/EC a fixed deadline on account of the aim pursued by the system established by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, and does it preclude the Member States from extending it, with the result that it is calculated according to that directive?










3.


If it is understood that the deadline may be extended, may it be extended for objective reasons of force majeure or may the Member States, to which the mandate in Article 3 is addressed, extend it in accordance with the conditions and requirements of their national legislation?






(1)  Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clofentezine, dicamba, difenoconazole, diflubenzuron, imazaquin, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen as active substances.

OJ 2008 L 172, p. 9.

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.
Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the Republic of Slovenia of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, action programme, air quality, environmental policy, industrial pollution, prevention of pollution, reduction of gas emissions, waste incineration








C_2016190EN.01000602.xml










28.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/6





Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the Republic of Slovenia of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions
(2016/C 190/07)
On 25 May 2016, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2016) 3012 on the notification by the Republic of Slovenia of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (1).
This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee


(1)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.
Case T-226/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Commission v McCarron Poultry (Arbitration clause — Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) — Contract relating to ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’ — Termination of the contract — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, eligibility criteria, energy research, environmental policy, environmental protection, interest, reimbursement of aid, sustainable development








C_2016243EN.01002901.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/29





Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Commission v McCarron Poultry
(Case T-226/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) - Contract relating to ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’ - Termination of the contract - Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default))
(2016/C 243/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, subsequently by F. Moro, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout, lawyer)

Defendant: McCarron Poultry Ltd (Killacorn Emyvale, Ireland)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the Commission under contract NNE5/1999/20229, together with default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders McCarron Poultry Ltd to repay to the Commission the sum of EUR 900 662,25, plus accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 2,50 % per annum from 1 December 2010 until the date of full payment of the debt;










2.


Orders McCarron Poultry to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
Case T-805/14: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM) (European Union trade mark — Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, means of public conveyance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, transport company








C_2016260EN.01003901.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/39





Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM)
(Case T-805/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 260/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stagecoach Group plc (Perth, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Jacobs, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1894/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MEGABUS.COM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Stagecoach Group plc shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016186EN.01000201.xml










25.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 May 2016
(2016/C 186/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1168 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,56 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,76513 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3060 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1079 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3355 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4358 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5083 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3035 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5597 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4684 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6743 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6604 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5445 




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,32 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4501 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3226 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4950 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 278,26 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5959 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,267 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,4262 




THB


Thai baht


39,914 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9639 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5852 




INR


Indian rupee


75,5780 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-263/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Magnetrol International v Commission
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, abuse of power, control of State aid, corporation tax, fiscal policy, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016279EN.01003201.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/32





Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Magnetrol International v Commission
(Case T-263/16)
(2016/C 279/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Magnetrol International (Zele, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selected measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of the calendar year 2016’ (COM(2016) 159 final — 2016/0086 COD)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EAGF, agricultural situation, aid to agriculture, financial control, management audit, single payment scheme, structural adjustment




C_2016303EN.01014801.xml










19.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/148





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of the calendar year 2016’
(COM(2016) 159 final — 2016/0086 COD)
(2016/C 303/22)
On 11 April 2016 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43(2) of the TFEU, on the:

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of the calendar year 2016

(COM(2016) 159 final — 2016/0086 COD).
Since the Committee has already set out its views on the content of the proposal in question in its opinions CES2942-2013_00_00_TRA_AC, adopted on 22 May 2013 (*), EESC-2014-02897-00-00-AC, adopted on 5 June 2014 (**) and EESC-2015-02052-00-00-AC-TRA, adopted on 22 April 2015 (***), it decided, at its 517th plenary session of 25 and 26 May 2016 (meeting of 25 May), by 161 votes to 2 with 8 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 25 May 2016.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS




(*)  EESC opinion NAT/602 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fixing an adjustment rate to direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar year 2013 (OJ C 271, 19.9.2013, p. 143).

(**)  EESC opinion NAT/646 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fixing an adjustment rate for direct payments provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar year 2014 (OJ C 424, 26.11.2014, p. 73).

(***)  EESC opinion NAT/668 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of calendar year 2015 (OJ C 291, 4.9.2015, p. 60).
Case F-111/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2016 — GW v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Concrete and detailed examination)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, cancer, health expenditure, married person, social security, therapeutics








C_2016251EN.01004901.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/49





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2016 — GW v Commission
(Case F-111/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Concrete and detailed examination))
(2016/C 251/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: GW (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant and his spouse reimbursement of the costs concerning three invoices for medical treatment and treatment relating to the cancer from which she is suffering.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Annuls the European Commission’s decision refusing to consider the costs in itemised accounts Nos 67 and 68 of 7 February 2014 and No 72 of 12 March 2014 relating to Mrs T’s healthcare to be reimbursable;










2)


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GW.






(1)  OJ C 354 of 26/10/2015, p. 55.
Case T-697/15: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Bergbräu v EUIPO — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016279EN.01004101.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/41





Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Bergbräu v EUIPO — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)
(Case T-697/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/57)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.