do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-6/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ocean ibiza — Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leisure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01003101.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/31





Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)
(Case T-6/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ocean ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 243/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, F. Miazzetto and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2014 (Case R 2207/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club and Ice Mountain Ibiza

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Case C-559/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures — Concept of ‘public policy’)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fundamental rights, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, public policy, right to justice








C_2016260EN.01000402.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/4





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited
(Case C-559/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures - Concept of ‘public policy’))
(2016/C 260/05)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni

Defendant: Recoletos Limited

Third parties: Aivars Lembergs, Olafs Berķis, Igors Skoks, Genādijs Ševcovs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of an order issued by a court of a Member State, without a prior hearing of a third person whose rights may be affected by that order, cannot be regarded as manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which enforcement is sought or manifestly contrary to the right to a fair trial within the meaning of those provisions, in so far as that third person is entitled to assert his rights before that court.


(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Case C-298/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Teodor Ispas, Anduța Ispas v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, administrative law, administrative order, administrative transparency, provision of documents, public authorities, rights of the defence








C_2016314EN.01001101.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Teodor Ispas, Anduța Ispas v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-298/16)
(2016/C 314/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimants: Teodor Ispas, Anduța Ispas

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Question referred

Is an administrative practice consisting in the taking of a decision imposing obligations on an individual without allowing that individual to have access to all of the information and documents considered by the public authority when it adopted that decision, being information and documents contained in the administrative file (not a public file) drawn up by the public authority, compatible with the principle of respect for the rights of the defence?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8024 — NTT Data International/IT Services Business of Dell) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, software








C_2016186EN.01001301.xml










25.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8024 — NTT Data International/IT Services Business of Dell)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 186/07)






1.


On 18 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 NTT Data International L.L.C. (‘NTT Data’, United States) belonging to the NTT group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Dell Services, which is the information technology services business of Dell Inc. (‘Dell’, United States) and certain subsidiaries thereof by way of purchase of shares and of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for NTT Data: NTT Data is a subsidiary of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (Japan), a telecommunications company,
—   for Dell Services: Dell Services provides a broad range of IT and business services, including infrastructure, cloud, applications and business process services to commercial and governmental customers from Dell.










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.8024 — NTT Data International/IT Services Business of Dell, 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.
Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/848 of 25 May 2016 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Denmark, of the European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Denmark, European Economic and Social Committee, appointment of members








L_2016141EN.01007801.xml










28.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 141/78








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/848
of 25 May 2016
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Denmark, of the European Economic and Social Committee


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020.












(2)


A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Mikkel DALSGAARD,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Klaus MATTHIESEN, Head of Negotiations, Confederation of Professionals in Denmark (FTF), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2020.


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




Done at Brussels, 25 May 2016.


For the Council


The President

J.R.V.A. DIJSSELBLOEM
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 of 18 September 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 53).

(2)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 of 1 October 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 260, 7.10.2015, p. 23).
Case T-258/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, ceramics, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01004401.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/44





Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)
(Case T-258/16)
(2016/C 251/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Mediterranean Premium Spirits, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Granell and J. Romaní Lluch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GINRAW’ — Application for registration No 12 431 681

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1583/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision rejecting the application for registration of EU trademark No 12 431 681 ‘GINRAW’ in classes 21 and 33 and, consequently, grant the registration of the mark;










—


order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1039/2012 of 29 October 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 310, 9.11.2012)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, thermal equipment








L_2016136EN.01001901.xml










25.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 136/19







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1039/2012 of 29 October 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People's Republic of China

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 310 of 9 November 2012
)


On page 11, Annex I, first column, second entry of the table:
for:


                  ‘Ningbo Ephriam Radiator Equipment Co., Ltd.’,

read:


                  ‘Ningbo Ephraim Radiator Equipment Co., Ltd.’.
Case T-261/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Portugal v Commission
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, dairy cow, eligibility criteria, single payment scheme








C_2016270EN.01005202.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/52





Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-261/16)
(2016/C 270/60)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from the financing an amount of EUR 385 762,22 for expenditure declared by Portugal in the context of the Specific Aid Measure established pursuant to Article 68 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January, in the accounting years 2011, 2012 and 2013;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 46(2) of Commission Regulation No 1122/2009 — Observance by the Portuguese authorities of all the rules concerning checks on the ‘supplementary payment per dairy cow equivalent unit’, in the context of the Specific Aid established by the Portuguese Government pursuant to Article 86 of Regulation No 73/2009.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation No 1290/2005, by failing to meet the requirements established by the Commission in the uniform guidelines included in document No VI/5330/97, for the application of a financial correction at a flat rate of 2 %.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7772 — Western Digital/Sandisk) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, peripheral








C_2016186EN.01000101.xml










25.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7772 — Western Digital/Sandisk)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 186/01)
On 4 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 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 32016M7772. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-753/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza — Earlier national figurative and word marks ocean drive Ibiza-hotel and OCEAN THE GROUP — Annulment of the earlier mark on which the contested decision was based — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leisure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01002902.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/29





Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)
(Case T-753/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza - Earlier national figurative and word marks ocean drive Ibiza-hotel and OCEAN THE GROUP - Annulment of the earlier mark on which the contested decision was based - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 243/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, F. Miazzetto and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Etyam, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Case R 2293/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Etyam and Ice Mountain Ibiza

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8048 — Ardagh/Ball Rexam Divestment Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, metal product, packaging product








C_2016186EN.01001401.xml










25.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8048 — Ardagh/Ball Rexam Divestment Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 186/08)






1.


On 18 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 Ardagh SA (‘Ardagh’, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of assets divested by Ball Corporation to obtain regulatory approvals for its acquisition of Rexam PLC (the ‘Ball/Rexam Divestment Business’), by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   For Ardagh: production of rigid packaging solutions for the food, beverage, and consumer products industries.
—   For the Ball/Rexam Divestment Business: manufacturing of beverage cans. In the EEA, the Ball/Rexam Divestment Business consists of eight Ball beverage can manufacturing plants, two Ball end plants, two Rexam beverage can manufacturing plants and certain support and innovation facilities in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Ball/Rexam Divestment Business also includes assets outside the EEA, notably in Brazil and the United States.










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.8048 — Ardagh/Ball Rexam Divestment Business, 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 C-292/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — A Oy
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, capital transfer tax, economic discrimination, establishment, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, tax, tax law, transfer of businesses








C_2016270EN.01003101.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/31





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — A Oy
(Case C-292/16)
(2016/C 270/35)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A Oy

Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 49 TFEU preclude Finnish legislation under which, where a Finnish company by way of a transfer of business disposes of assets of a permanent establishment situated in another EU Member State to a company established in that State in return for new shares, the transfer of the assets is taxed immediately in the year of transfer, but in a corresponding national situation is not taxed until the time of realisation?










2.


Is there indirect or direct discrimination if Finland levies tax immediately in the year of the transfer of business before the income has been realised, and in a domestic situation not until the time of realisation?










3.


If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative, may the restriction of the right of establishment be justified on grounds such as an overriding reason of the public interest or the preservation of the national power of taxation? Does the prohibited restriction comply with the principle of proportionality?