do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-429/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, computer equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01002201.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/22





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)
(Case T-429/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 314/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 2176/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Case C-271/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation v European Commission (Appeal — Public right of access to documents of the EU institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Incorrect interpretation — Obligation to state reasons — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of application of the exception to the right of access to all documents in the administrative file — Scope of the presumption of confidentiality — Application for access to the complaint which gave rise to an inquiry procedure — Refusal of access — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, confidentiality, control of State aid








C_2016335EN.01002202.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/22





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation v European Commission
(Case C-271/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public right of access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Incorrect interpretation - Obligation to state reasons - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of application of the exception to the right of access to all documents in the administrative file - Scope of the presumption of confidentiality - Application for access to the complaint which gave rise to an inquiry procedure - Refusal of access - Overriding public interest))
(2016/C 335/30)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation (represented by: B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, D. Grespan and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Sea Handling SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 14 July 2016 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Eesti Pank (ECB/2016/20)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: Estonia, accountant, appointment of staff, auditing, central bank, self-employed person








C_2016266EN.01000101.xml










22.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/1





RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 14 July 2016
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Eesti Pank
(ECB/2016/20)
(2016/C 266/01)
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of Eesti Pank’s current external auditors, AS Deloitte Audit Eesti, ended following the audit for the financial year 2015. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2016.










(3)


Eesti Pank has selected KPMG Baltics OÜ as its external auditors for the financial years 2016 to 2020,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that KPMG Baltics OÜ should be appointed as the external auditors of Eesti Pank for the financial years 2016 to 2020.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 14 July 2016.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
Case F-56/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Dominguez Perez v Commission (Civil service — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal for the crediting of pensionable years, accepted by the person concerned, based on the new general implementing provisions — Act not having an adverse effect — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016326EN.01003402.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/34





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Dominguez Perez v Commission
(Case F-56/14) (1)

((Civil service - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal for the crediting of pensionable years, accepted by the person concerned, based on the new general implementing provisions - Act not having an adverse effect - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 326/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Dolores Dominguez Perez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent and, lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of two calculation proposals relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension scheme which apply the new GIP for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2.


Ms Dolores Dominguez Perez shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4/8/2014, p. 70.
Case T-371/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, equal treatment, fiscal policy, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of legal certainty, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016350EN.01002001.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/20





Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission
(Case T-371/16)
(2016/C 350/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Geel, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, 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, order the European 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 that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016255EN.01000201.xml










14.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 July 2016
(2016/C 255/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1072 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,82 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4378 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83398 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4368 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0909 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3145 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,033 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,39 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4055 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4914 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2047 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4517 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4452 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5892 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5154 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4903 




KRW


South Korean won


1 265,58 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8695 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4077 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4932 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 443,98 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3659 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,182 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,6406 




THB


Thai baht


38,951 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6517 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,2800 




INR


Indian rupee


74,2155 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-345/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Modas Cristal v EUIPO — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark KRISTAL — Earlier national word and figurative marks MODAS CRISTAL and home CRISTAL — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2016326EN.01002601.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/26





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Modas Cristal v EUIPO — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL)
(Case T-345/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark KRISTAL - Earlier national word and figurative marks MODAS CRISTAL and home CRISTAL - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 326/46)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Modas Cristal, SL (Santa Lucía, Spain) (represented by: E Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama Anonim Sirketi (Denizli, Turkey)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 341/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Modas Cristal and Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Modas Cristal, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case T-491/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (ConnectedWork) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark ConnectedWork — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01002301.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/23





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (ConnectedWork)
(Case T-491/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union word mark ConnectedWork - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 314/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Eberl and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2015 (Case R 160/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ConnectedWork as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8011 — SIA Group/Airbus Group/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, maintenance, merger control








C_2016255EN.01000101.xml










14.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8011 — SIA Group/Airbus Group/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 255/01)
On 7 July 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 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 32016M8011. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (Publication of references of European Assessment Documents in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011) (OJ C 248, 8.7.2016)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, building materials, harmonisation of standards, launching of a product, marketing standard, quality standard, technical standard








C_2016255EN.01000901.xml










14.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/9





Corrigendum to Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC
(Publication of references of European Assessment Documents in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 248 of 8 July 2016
)
(2016/C 255/06)
On page 9, in the table, after the 12th row (130033-00-0603 — Nails and screws for use in nailing plates in timber structures), the following row shall be added:








Reference and title of the European Assessment Document


Reference and title of the superseded European Assessment Document


Remarks




‘150003-00-0301


High strength cement’
Case T-368/15: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB (Action for annulment — Action for compensation — Decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the ECB — Provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks — Ceiling — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility — Infringement of procedural requirements)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Greece, central bank, financial aid, money-market liquidity, principle of proportionality, single monetary policy








C_2016335EN.01004602.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/46





Order of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB
(Case T-368/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Action for compensation - Decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the ECB - Provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks - Ceiling - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility - Infringement of procedural requirements))
(2016/C 335/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alcimos Consulting SMPC (Athens, Greece) (represented by: F. Rodolaki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 June 2015 by which it was decided to maintain the ceiling to the provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks at the level decided on 26 June 2015 and for annulment of the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 6 July 2015 by which it was decided to maintain that ceiling at that same level and to adjust the haircuts on collateral accepted by the Bank of Greece in that respect, and application, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation for the damage which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Alcimos Consulting SMPC shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case C-391/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: crime, foreign national, human rights, public safety, refugee, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2016350EN.01001601.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra
(Case C-391/16)
(2016/C 350/20)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: M

Defendant: Ministerstvo vnitra

Question referred

Is Article 14(4) and (6) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted invalid on the grounds that it infringes Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of EU law under Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union?


(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.
Case C-230/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Brite Strike Technologies Inc. v Brite Strike Technologies SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 22(4) — Jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes — Article 71 — Conventions concluded by the Member States on particular matters — Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property — Jurisdiction in disputes concerning Benelux trade marks and designs — Article 350 TFEU)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Benelux, conflict of jurisdiction, intellectual property, multilateral agreement, territorial jurisdiction








C_2016335EN.01002101.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/21





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Brite Strike Technologies Inc. v Brite Strike Technologies SA
(Case C-230/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 22(4) - Jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes - Article 71 - Conventions concluded by the Member States on particular matters - Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property - Jurisdiction in disputes concerning Benelux trade marks and designs - Article 350 TFEU))
(2016/C 335/28)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brite Strike Technologies Inc.

Defendant: Brite Strike Technologies SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71 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, read in the light of Article 350 TFEU, does not preclude the application to those disputes of the rule of jurisdiction for disputes relating to Benelux trademarks and designs, laid down in Article 4.6 of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2005, signed in The Hague by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.


(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.