do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-82/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO — Maquet (LUCEO) (European Union trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — European Union word mark LUCEO — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith during the filing of the application for registration — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2016305EN.01002702.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/27





Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO — Maquet (LUCEO)
(Case T-82/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - European Union word mark LUCEO - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith during the filing of the application for registration - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 305/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the Genelral Court: Maquet GmbH (Rastatt, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2013 (Case R 2292/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Copernicus-Trademarks and Maquet.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Maquet GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8116 — Macquarie/Swiss Life/SGI Italia) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, gas industry, gas supply, insurance company, merger control








C_2016246EN.01001701.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/17





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8116 — Macquarie/Swiss Life/SGI Italia)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 246/09)






1.


On 29 June 2016 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which MEIF 4 Luxembourg C. Holdings SARL, ultimately owned by Macquarie Group Limited (‘Macquarie’, Australia) and Swiss Life GIO II Eur Holding SARL, ultimately owned by Swiss Life Holding AG (‘Swiss Life’, Switzerland), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Società Gasdotti Italia Holding SpA (‘SGI Italia’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Macquarie is a global provider of banking, financial, advisory, investment and funds and management services.










—


Swiss Life is active in life insurance, risk, pensions, health insurance and asset management.










—


SGI Italia is an independent transport system operator (TSO) which owns a limited part of the Italian high pressure gas network.














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 M.8116 — Macquarie/Swiss Life/SGI Italia, 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8040 — Silver Lake Group/Cegid Group) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, software








C_2016246EN.01000101.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8040 — Silver Lake Group/Cegid Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 246/01)
On 30 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 32016M8040. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-364/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and others/Commission
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Taric, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron and steel product, legal basis, originating product, piping, tube








C_2016305EN.01005101.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/51





Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and others/Commission
(Case T-364/16)
(2016/C 305/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic) and 12 other applicants (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission adopted on or before 6 June 2016 to remove Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd from the list of companies listed under TARIC Additional Code A950 and instead list it under a new TARIC Additional Code C129 for all the TARIC Codes mentioned in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2015 L 322, p. 21) and thereby reducing the rate of anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of SPT produced by Hubei to 0 %,










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea arguing that the challenged decision lacked a legal basis and therefore violates Article 1(2) and the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272.
The European Commission based the challenged decision on the judgment of the Court of Justice in ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd and Council of the European Union v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (Joined Cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P, EU:C:2016:209), by which the Court confirmed the judgment of the General Court in Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (T-528/09, EU:T:2014:35), by which the General Court had annulled Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 imposing an anti-dumping duty on certain seamless pipes and tubes (‘SPT’) originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on products produced by Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd. According to the applicants, the European Commission wrongly extended the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 because the latter regulation was not the subject matter of the dispute in the previous court cases. Therefore, the European Commission could have adopted the challenged decision only after it had repealed Regulation (EU) 2015/2272.
Case C-608/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Panasonic Corp. v MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market-sharing, customer-allocation and output-limitation — Rights of the defence — Statement of objections — Content)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, fine, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, right to justice, rights of the defence, screen, television equipment








C_2016343EN.01001601.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/16





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Panasonic Corp. v MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission
(Case C-608/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market-sharing, customer-allocation and output-limitation - Rights of the defence - Statement of objections - Content))
(2016/C 343/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Panasonic Corp. (represented by: R. Gerrits, advocaat, M. Hoskins QC, and M. Gray, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Panasonic Corp. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case C-476/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 98/6/EC and 2005/29/EC — Consumer protection — Advertisement containing an indication of price — Concepts of ‘offer’ and ‘price inclusive of taxes’ — Obligation to include in the price of a motor vehicle the additional costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer protection, direct cost, motor vehicle, selling price








C_2016335EN.01000602.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)
(Case C-476/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 98/6/EC and 2005/29/EC - Consumer protection - Advertisement containing an indication of price - Concepts of ‘offer’ and ‘price inclusive of taxes’ - Obligation to include in the price of a motor vehicle the additional costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle))
(2016/C 335/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Citroën Commerce GmbH

Defendant: Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers, read in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 2(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that costs in connection with the transfer of a motor vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer, which are payable by the consumer, must be included in the selling price of that vehicle indicated in an advertisement made by the trader when, having regard to all the features of that advertisement, in the eyes of the consumer it sets out an offer concerning that vehicle. It is for the referring court to determine whether all those conditions are satisfied.


(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
Case C-378/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 in Case T-539/13, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, damages, indemnification, infringement of EU law, interest, reimbursement of aid, research and development








C_2016326EN.01001701.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/17





Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 in Case T-539/13, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission
(Case C-378/16 P)
(2016/C 326/29)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: S. Famiani, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 17 July 2013, the European Commission requested payment from Inclusion Alliance for Europe of a total amount of EUR 212 411,89 in respect of Projects No 224 482 (MARE), No 216 820 (SENIOR), and No 225 010 (ECRN). Inclusion Alliance for Europe brought an action seeking annulment of that decision before the General Court, which gave a decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Inclusion Alliance for Europe claims that the order under appeal should be set aside in its entirety, for the reasons outlined below.
The order under appeal failed to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law in the assessment of the action brought against the Commission’s decision.
The General Court erroneously regarded the arguments put forward in the reply as pleas in law which had been submitted for the first time, whereas they are, on the contrary, clarifications of the pleas in law and arguments already set out in the original application, with the result that there is no infringement of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991.
Regarding the submissions made concerning the principles of EU law applicable to the audit procedure, the General Court provided an inadequate, or even no, statement of reasons, incorrectly continuing to bring the case back to the issue of interpretation/breach of contract rather than taking the infringement of the general principles of EU law into account.
The order under appeal fails to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law with regard to the claim of unjust enrichment and the claim for compensation brought against the European Commission.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016246EN.01000301.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 July 2016
(2016/C 246/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1069 




JPY


Japanese yen


111,48 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4411 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85300 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4671 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0821 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3517 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,078 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4562 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5185 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2628 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4812 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4419 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5885 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5556 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4969 




KRW


South Korean won


1 289,10 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4815 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4018 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4904 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 617,72 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4828 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,153 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,6165 




THB


Thai baht


38,952 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6787 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9024 




INR


Indian rupee


74,6283 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case F-34/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, allowances and expenses, dependant, education grant, interest








C_2016326EN.01003502.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/35





Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament
(Case F-34/16)
(2016/C 326/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to recover the amounts which the applicant allegedly received unduly in respect of education allowance and dependent child allowance and the decisions ending her entitlement to certain allowances.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the new ‘received from other sources’ recovery decision;










—


Annul the ‘end of entitlement’ recovery decision, in so far as it sets the end of the applicant’s entitlement to the education allowance for XX and YY as 1 July 2015 instead of 1 October 2015 and in so far as it sets the end of her entitlement to the household allowance as 1 August 2015 instead of 1 October 2015;










—


Annul, if necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;










—


Order the defendant to pay late-payment interest to the applicant on the amounts irregularly withheld or recovered at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two points, with effect, in respect of each amount, from the date on which it should have been paid to her;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, audiovisual equipment, competition (EU), technical profession








C_2016246EN.01000601.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/6





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2016/C 246/07)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AST/138/16 — AUDIO-VISUAL AND CONFERENCE TECHNICIANS (AST 3)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 246 A of 7 July 2016.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case C-377/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), contract staff, drivers, linguistic discrimination, official language, recruitment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2016314EN.01001302.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/13





Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament
(Case C-377/16)
(2016/C 314/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Call for Expressions of Interest — Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016. (1)











—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.



First plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation 1/58, (2) Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3) (the Charter) and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations by imposing the restriction, which extends to the application form, that communication between EPSO and the applicant should be solely in English, French and German.










2.



Second plea: infringement of Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants contained in the Staff Regulations, by requiring satisfactory knowledge of a second official language of the European Union when that knowledge is not necessary for the performance of the duties that the successful applicants will be called upon to carry out.










3.



Third plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, and Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants, because the choice of second language is improperly restricted to solely three languages, namely English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union.










4.



Fourth plea: the choice of English, French and German, as the second language of the call for expressions of interest, constitutes an arbitrary choice that gives rise to discrimination on the ground of language prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.






(1)  
OJ 2016, C 131 A, p. 1.


(2)  Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, 17, p. 385), as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 (
OJ 2013, L 158, p. 1
).

(3)  
OJ 2016, C 202, p. 389.