do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-341/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, access to information, interinstitutional relations (EU), parliamentary question, right to information








C_2016287EN.01003401.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/34





Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission

(Case T-341/16)
(2016/C 287/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Professor A. Fischer-Lescano)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 June 2016 on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 8 June 2016;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, by which he alleges an infringement of the rights of parliamentary representatives stemming from the second paragraph of Article 230 TFEU in conjunction with Article 10(2) TEU and obligations to provide information.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8064 — Bain Capital/Vista/Vertafore) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2016235EN.01000302.xml










29.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8064 — Bain Capital/Vista/Vertafore)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 235/03)
On 20 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 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 32016M8064. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-486/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement — Articles 54 and 55(1)(a) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Whether an accused may be prosecuted in a Member State after criminal proceedings brought against him in another Member State have been terminated by the public prosecutor’s office without a detailed investigation — No examination of the merits of the case)
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Schengen Agreement, criminal proceedings, internal border of the EU, judicial investigation, rights of the defence








C_2016335EN.01000701.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/7





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski
(Case C-486/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement - Articles 54 and 55(1)(a) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Whether an accused may be prosecuted in a Member State after criminal proceedings brought against him in another Member State have been terminated by the public prosecutor’s office without a detailed investigation - No examination of the merits of the case))
(2016/C 335/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Party in the main proceedings

Piotr Kossowski

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of ne bis in idem laid down in Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, which was signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the public prosecutor terminating criminal proceedings and finally closing the investigation procedure against a person, albeit with the possibility of its being reopened or annulled, without any penalties having been imposed, cannot be characterised as a final decision for the purposes of those articles when it is clear from the statement of reasons for that decision that the procedure was closed without a detailed investigation having been carried out; in that regard, the fact that neither the victim nor a potential witness was interviewed is an indication that no such investigation took place.


(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8100 — IK/Five Arrows/I@D) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2016235EN.01000801.xml










29.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8100 — IK/Five Arrows/I@D)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 235/08)






1.


On 21 June 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking(s) IK VII Limited (‘IK’, United Kingdom) belonging to the IK Investment Partners group and Five Arrows Managers (‘Five Arrows’, France) controlled by Rothschild & Co. acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of I@D Holding and its subsidiaries (‘I@D’, France), by way of purchase of shares through investment funds they manage and/or advise and related acquisition vehicles.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for IK: portfolio management activities on behalf of third parties,
—   for Five Arrows: portfolio management activities on behalf of third parties,
—   for I@D: real estate platform.










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.8100 — IK/Five Arrows/I@D, 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-347/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Inox Mare v Commission
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Philippines, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, customs duties, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2016296EN.01003801.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/38





Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Inox Mare v Commission
(Case T-347/16)
(2016/C 296/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Inox Mare Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision C(2015) 9672 final of 6 January 2016 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/14) and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the follow-up to the decision contested in Case T-289/16, Inox Mare v Commission.
In support of its action, the applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful as a result of the serious irregularities in the related investigation procedure conducted by OLAF and concluded by the Final Report contested in Case T-289/16, as cited above.
In concrete terms, the contested measure is vitiated by:






—


Infringement and incorrect application of the Community legislation on the anti-dumping duty.










—


Infringement and incorrect application of the Philippine and Community legislation on the duty, conferred on the Philippine customs authorities, to verify the origins of goods certified by those authorities.










—


Infringement and incorrect application of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).




Therefore, in its heads of claim the applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision for infringement of the Treaties and the rules of law relating to their application and for infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 thereof.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7849 — Mol Hungarian Oil and Gas/Eni Hungaria/Eni Slovenija) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2016235EN.01000301.xml










29.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7849 — Mol Hungarian Oil and Gas/Eni Hungaria/Eni Slovenija)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 235/02)
On 7 April 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 32016M7849. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-343/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Trane v Commission
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, cold store, control of State aid, corporation tax, profit, provision of services, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption








C_2016296EN.01003701.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/37





Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Trane v Commission
(Case T-343/16)
(2016/C 296/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Trane (Zaventem, Belgium) (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 selective measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE 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 order Belgium to recover aid.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7927 — EPH/Enel/SE) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical industry, energy industry, energy production, energy supply, gas industry, merger control








C_2016235EN.01000701.xml










29.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7927 — EPH/Enel/SE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 235/07)






1.


On 20 June 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Energetický a průmyslový holding, a.s. (‘EPH’, Czech Republic) and Enel SpA (‘Enel’, Italy) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Slovenske elektrarne, a.s. (‘SE’, Slovakia), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


SE is active in electricity generation, wholesale and retail supply of electricity, as well as balancing and ancillary services in Slovakia. SE is currently solely controlled by Enel,










—


Enel is a global player, active in electricity and gas generation, distribution and supply,










—


EPH is a vertically integrated utility company engaged in coal extraction, electricity and heat production, distribution and supply as well as gas transmission, distribution, storage and supply.














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 M.7927 — EPH/Enel/SE, 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 T-352/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — City of Brussels v Commission
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, approval, commercial vehicle, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures, powers of the institutions (EU), technical standard








C_2016314EN.01003001.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/30





Action brought on 29 June 2016 — City of Brussels v Commission
(Case T-352/16)
(2016/C 314/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: City of Brussels (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele and S. Kaisergruber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its application admissible and well founded;




consequently:






—


annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 37 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of recitals 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), and of Annex I to that regulation, and alleging misuse and abuse of powers by the European Commission.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5a(3) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23), of recital 3 of Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 11), of recital 25 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Article 5(3) of that regulation, and alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested regulation and misused its powers.
Case C-361/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 June 2016 by Franmax UAB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2016 in Case T-21/15: Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (DINO)
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017078EN.01000602.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/6





Appeal brought on 29 June 2016 by Franmax UAB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2016 in Case T-21/15: Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (DINO)
(Case C-361/16 P)
(2017/C 078/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Franmax UAB (represented by: E. Saukalas, advokatas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu
By order of 8 November 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative marks animal — Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL — Relative ground for refusal — Application of national law by EUIPO — Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based — Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2016-06-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016287EN.01002101.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/21





Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal)
(Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative marks animal - Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL - Relative ground for refusal - Application of national law by EUIPO - Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based - Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2016/C 287/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Bullock and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: H Young Holdings plc (Newbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor, and A. Roughton, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Cases R 2054/2013-1 and R 2058/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Universal Protein Supplements and H Young Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the applications;










2.


Orders Universal Protein Supplements Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.