do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-450/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA (Preliminary reference — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2)(a) — Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality — Determination of the amount of the fine — Criteria — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — National practice — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances — Application of the maximum limit of 10 % of total turnover — Absence of jurisdiction of the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2016-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, jurisdiction, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2016343EN.01001301.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/13





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA
(Case C-450/15) (1)

((Preliminary reference - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2)(a) - Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality - Determination of the amount of the fine - Criteria - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - National practice - Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine - Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances - Application of the maximum limit of 10 % of total turnover - Absence of jurisdiction of the Court - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
(2016/C 343/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

Operative part of the order

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decision of 16 June 2015.


(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8072 — TOTAL/Saft) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity storage device, merger control








C_2016233EN.01000901.xml










28.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8072 — TOTAL/Saft)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 233/05)






1.


On 17 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 TOTAL SA (‘TOTAL’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Saft Groupe SA (‘Saft’, France) by way of public bid announced on 9 May 2016.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for TOTAL: Energy production in the gas and oil sector including (i) exploration and production; (ii) operations on the whole liquefied natural gas chain; (iii) refining and chemicals; (iv) trading and shipping; (v) marketing and services. TOTAL has activities in the sector of renewable energies including solar energy and biomass
—   for Saft: Design, development, manufacture and supply of rechargeable and non-rechargeable industrial batteries for a wide range of civil and military applications, including industrial infrastructure and transportation systems, smart cities and medical devices, energy storage and telecom networks, industrial vehicles and defence systems, and satellites and space applications.










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 the 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 number Case M.8072 — TOTAL/Saft, 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-340/16: Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Flatworld Solutions/EUIPO — Outsource2India (Outsource 2 India)
Date: 2016-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, India, outsourcing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01004701.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/47





Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Flatworld Solutions/EUIPO — Outsource2India (Outsource 2 India)
(Case T-340/16)
(2016/C 305/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd (Bangalore, India) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes, J. Schumacher, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Outsource2India Ltd (Friedrichshafen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Outsource 2 India’ — EU trade mark No 6 035 547

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in Case R 611/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 3 February 2015;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred by the Applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-115/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission
Date: 2016-06-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016287EN.01003702.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/37





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission
(Case F-115/14) (1)

(2016/C 287/46)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 55.
Case C-355/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 June 2016 — Christian Picart v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
Date: 2016-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, national, national law, residence, right of establishment, self-employed person, shareholding








C_2016335EN.01003601.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/36





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 June 2016 — Christian Picart v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
(Case C-355/16)
(2016/C 335/48)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Christian Picart

Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

Questions referred







1.


May the right of establishment as a self-employed person, as defined in Articles 1 and 4 of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 and Article 12 of Annex I to that agreement, be regarded as equivalent to the freedom of establishment which Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, guarantees in respect of activities pursued as a self-employed person?










2.


In this case, account being taken of the provisions in Article 16 of the agreement, should the case-law deriving from the judgment of 7 September 2006 in Case C-470/04, which was made after the agreement, be applied in the case of a national of a Member State who transferred his residence to Switzerland and who merely keeps his shareholding in companies under the law of that Member State (which gives him a definite influence over the decisions of those companies and enables him to determine their activities), without claiming to have the intention to pursue in Switzerland an activity as a self-employed person which is different to the activity he pursued in the Member State of which he was a national and which consists in the management of his shareholdings?










3.


If that right is not equivalent to the freedom of establishment, must it be interpreted in the same way as the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the freedom of establishment in its judgment of 7 September 2006 in Case C-470/04?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7792 — Konecranes/Terex MHPS) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hoisting equipment, merger control, processing industry








C_2016233EN.01000801.xml










28.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7792 — Konecranes/Terex MHPS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 233/04)






1.


On 17 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 Konecranes PLC (‘Konecranes’, Finland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the Material Handling and Port Solutions business part of Terex (‘Terex’, United States of America).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Konecranes PLC: lifting businesses, serving a broad range of customers, including manufacturing and process industries, shipyards, ports and terminals. Konecranes provides productivity-enhancing lifting solutions as well as services for lifting equipment and machine tools of all makes,
—   for Terex MHPS: Terex MHPS supplies industrial cranes, hoists and services, as well as port technology with a broad range of manual, semi-automated and automated solutions. MHPS has manufacturing facilities in 16 countries on five continents and operates a sales and service network in more than 60 countries.










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.7792 — Konecranes/Terex MHPS 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-357/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 June 2016 — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba
Date: 2016-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, single market








C_2016335EN.01003701.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/37





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 June 2016 — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba
(Case C-357/16)
(2016/C 335/50)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: UAB ‘Gelvora’

Other party: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

Questions referred







1.


Does the legal relationship between a company that has acquired the right to a debt under an assignment of claim agreement and a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement, where the company carries out acts of debt recovery, fall within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) 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?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the term ‘product’ used in Article 2(c) of the Directive cover acts performed in exercising the right to the debt acquired under the assignment of claim agreement in the context of debt recovery from a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement entered into with the original creditor?










3.


Does the legal relationship between a company that has acquired the right to a debt under an assignment of claim agreement and a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement and has already been established by a final judicial decision and passed to the bailiff for enforcement, where the company is carrying out parallel acts of debt recovery, fall within the scope of the Directive?










4.


If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does the term ‘product’ used in Article 2(c) of the Directive cover acts performed in exercising the right to the debt acquired under the assignment of claim agreement in the context of debt recovery from a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement entered into with the original creditor and has been established by a final judicial decision and passed to the bailiff for enforcement?






(1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.