do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-540/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany — Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances — Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ — Implementing powers of the Commission)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, air quality, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit








C_2016314EN.01000201.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-540/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany - Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances - Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ - Implementing powers of the Commission))
(2016/C 314/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Case C-348/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Sacko Moussa v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, national law, right of asylum








C_2016343EN.01002801.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/28





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Sacko Moussa v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano
(Case C-348/16)
(2016/C 343/40)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sacko Moussa

Defendant: Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano

Question referred

Must Directive 2013/32/EU (1) (in particular Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46) be interpreted as permitting a procedure, such as the Italian procedure (under Article 19(9) of Legislative Decree No 150 of 2011), whereby a judicial authority seised by an asylum-seeker — whose application has been rejected by the administrative authority responsible for considering applications for asylum after it has conducted a full examination, including an interview — may, in cases where the application for judicial review is manifestly unfounded and the administrative authority’s rejection of the application is thus incontrovertible, dismiss the application for judicial review without preparatory inquiries and without being required to afford the applicant a further opportunity to be heard?


(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7978 — Liberty Global/Vodafone/Dutch JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: broadcasting, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications, television








C_2016225EN.01000401.xml










22.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7978 — Liberty Global/Vodafone/Dutch JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 225/05)






1.


On 14 June 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 Vodafone Group plc (‘Vodafone’, United Kingdom) and Liberty Global Europe Holding BV, belonging to the Group of Liberty Global plc (‘Liberty Global’, United Kingdom), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture in the Netherlands by way of transfer of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Vodafone: operation of mobile telecommunications networks and provision of mobile telecommunications services, such as mobile voice, messaging and data services. Most of Vodafone’s operating companies also provide fixed voice, fixed internet and/or cable and IPTV services. Within the EU, Vodafone is active in 12 Member States, including the Netherlands,
—   for Liberty Global: ownership and operation of cable networks offering TV, broadband internet and voice telephony services in 12 countries across Europe. Liberty Global is active in the Netherlands primarily through Ziggo, which owns and operates a cable network, provides digital and analogue cable voice-over-IP services and mobile telephony services, as a mobile virtual network operator. In addition, Ziggo owns equity interest in HBO Nederland Coöperatief UA, which supplies three HBO-branded pay-TV and related video-on-demand channels to Dutch customers. Ziggo currently holds the broadcasting rights for several sports events and distributes the sports channels Ziggo Sport Totaal and Ziggo Sport.










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.










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 number M.7978 — Liberty Global/Vodafone/Dutch JV, 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’).
Case C-345/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Luxembourg, double taxation, pension scheme, tax convention, tax exemption, tax relief, tax system








C_2016326EN.01001402.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State
(Case C-345/16)
(2016/C 326/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

Defendant: Belgian State

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union for the Belgian tax system, at Article 155 of the CIR/92 and regardless of whether Circular No Ci.RH.331/575.420 of 12 March 2008 is applied, to have the effect that Mr Jacob’s Luxembourg pensions, exempted from tax pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention concluded between Belgium and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation, are taken into account for the purposes of calculating the tax payable in Belgium and used as the basis of assessment for the grant of tax advantages provided for under the CIR 92, and that those advantages, such as the tax-free allowance, long-term savings, costs paid with service vouchers, costs incurred in saving energy in the home, costs incurred in protecting the home against theft or fire, and charitable donations made by the applicant, are reduced or granted to a lesser extent than if both the applicants had income earned in Belgium and if Ms Lennertz, and not Mr Jacob, had received pensions only from Belgium?
Case T-118/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Household appliances — Restructuring aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions — Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure — Lack of individual concern — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, household electrical appliance








C_2016279EN.01002601.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/26





Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission
(Case T-118/13) (1)

((Actions for annulment - State aid - Household appliances - Restructuring aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions - Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure - Lack of individual concern - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 279/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, É. Gippini Fournier and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Electrolux AB (Stockholm, Sweden), represented by F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) and Fagor France SA (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/283/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.23839 (C 44/2007) that France plans to grant to FagarBrandt (OJ 2013 L 166, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Whirlpool Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the French Republic, Electrolux AB and Fagor France SA to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8037 — INCJ/Sumitomo/Sekisui/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry








C_2016225EN.01000102.xml










22.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8037 — INCJ/Sumitomo/Sekisui/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 225/02)
On 16 June 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 32016M8037. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-337/16: Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016296EN.01003601.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/36





Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)
(Case T-337/16)
(2016/C 296/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘VERSACCINO’ — Application for registration No 11 957 685

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1172/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present action;










—


annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 11 957 685 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those already granted;










—


order the other party to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


The applicant maintains that the decision of 6 April 2016 is undermined from the outset and is vitiated by the scant examination of the evidence, and especially by a superficial examination of the marks as regards the confusion of the Italian language to which EUIPO appears to make reference.
Case T-336/16: Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, computer equipment, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, footwear industry, registered trade mark, telecommunications equipment, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2016296EN.01003501.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/35





Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)
(Case T-336/16)
(2016/C 296/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO’ — Application for registration No 11 992 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1005/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present action;










—


annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 11 992 435 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those already granted;










—


order the other party to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


The applicant maintains that the decision of 6 April 2016 is vitiated by the scant examination of the evidence demonstrating insufficient use of the marks activated by the other party, and by the failure to examine carefully the likelihood of confusion between the marks and the goods in question in the light of all the relevant factors.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1081 of 22 June 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Krčko maslinovo ulje (PDO))
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2016180EN.01000101.xml










6.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 180/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1081
of 22 June 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Krčko maslinovo ulje (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. — Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 22 June 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 99, 15.3.2016, p. 20.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-295/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Matratzen Concord GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — EU word mark ARKTIS — Application for revocation — Genuine use of the mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Form of use of the mark — Proof of use of the mark — Consent of the proprietor — Partial rejection of the application for revocation)
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2016343EN.01001201.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/12





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Matratzen Concord GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita
(Case C-295/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - EU word mark ARKTIS - Application for revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Form of use of the mark - Proof of use of the mark - Consent of the proprietor - Partial rejection of the application for revocation))
(2016/C 343/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Matratzen Concord GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-06-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016225EN.01000201.xml










22.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 June 2016
(2016/C 225/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1314 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,39 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4358 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,76755 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3240 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0850 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3718 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,064 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3991 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5408 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2791 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5073 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4451 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7778 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5804 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5169 




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,05 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6044 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4466 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5185 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 005,19 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5563 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,379 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,7638 




THB


Thai baht


39,837 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8100 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0037 




INR


Indian rupee


76,4493 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.