do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-54/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Goldfish and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimps — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price-fixing and allocation of sales volumes — Admissibility of evidence — Use of secret recordings of telephone conversations as evidence — Assessment of ability to pay — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, crustacean, domestic market, international cartel, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2016392EN.01002402.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/24





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Goldfish and Others v Commission
(Case T-54/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimps - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price-fixing and allocation of sales volumes - Admissibility of evidence - Use of secret recordings of telephone conversations as evidence - Assessment of ability to pay - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2016/C 392/28)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Goldfish BV (Zoutkamp, Netherlands), Heiploeg BV (Zoutkamp), Heiploeg Beheer BV (Zoutkamp) and Heiploeg Holding BV (Zoutkamp) (represented by: P. Glazener and B. Winters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, and subsequently by: P. Van Nuffel and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, secondly, for reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on those applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Goldfish BV, Heiploeg BV, Heiploeg Beheer BV and Heiploeg Holding BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Case T-467/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Fines — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — Duration of the Commission’s investigation — Rights of the defence — Single and continuous infringement)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, fine, generic drug, market access, patent, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2016383EN.01001002.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/10





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission
(Case T-467/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Duration of the Commission’s investigation - Rights of the defence - Single and continuous infringement))
(2016/C 383/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Arrow Group ApS (Roskilde, Denmark) and Arrow Generics Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S.D. Kon, C. Firth and C. Humpe, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Arrow Group ApS and Arrow Generics Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
Case T-460/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition by object — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Fines — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duration of the Commission’s investigation)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, fine, generic drug, market access, patent, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition








C_2016383EN.01001001.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/10





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission
(Case T-460/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition by object - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the Commission’s investigation))
(2016/C 383/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (Vadodara, India) and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vollrath, F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
Case C-322/15: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the question referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accounting, competition law, freedom to provide services, provision of services, restriction on competition, telecommunications








C_2016454EN.01000901.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/9






Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni
(Case C-322/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the question referred - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2016/C 454/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Intervening parties: Filandolarete Srl, Associazione Confindustria Radio Televisioni, Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali (FIEG)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Italy), by decision of 22 April 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Case C-461/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Change to the allocation — Article 24(1) — Obligation of the operator of the installation to provide information — Scope)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, disclosure of information, emission allowance, greenhouse gas, information, tradeable emission permit








C_2016402EN.01001102.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/11





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-461/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Change to the allocation - Article 24(1) - Obligation of the operator of the installation to provide information - Scope))
(2016/C 402/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from requiring undertakings which, being subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading obligation within the European Union, receive a free allocation of those allowances to provide information relating to all planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation, without limiting that requirement solely to information relating to changes that would affect the allocation.


(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8127 — Volvo Car Corporation/Volverk/Volvofinans Bank) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2016330EN.01000102.xml










8.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8127 — Volvo Car Corporation/Volverk/Volvofinans Bank)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 330/02)
On 29 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 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 32016M8127. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-484/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 8 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, constitution, criminal law, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, national implementing measure, national law, offence, right of establishment








C_2016428EN.01001201.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 8 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro
(Case C-484/16)
(2016/C 428/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Taranto

Party to the main proceedings

Antonio Semeraro

Question referred

Does Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, (1) implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 212 of 15 December 2015 (Gazzetta Ufficiale General Series No 3 of 5 January 2016), in particular recitals 9, 66 and 67 and Article 2(1)(a) thereof, preclude the repeal of the criminal offence set out in Article 594 of the Criminal Code referred to in Articles [1] et seq. of Legislative Decree No 7 of 15 January 2016, having regard to Article 83 TFEU and Articles 2 and 3 of the Italian Constitution and to Articles 49, 51, 53 and 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016330EN.01000201.xml










8.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 September 2016
(2016/C 330/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1237 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,23 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4441 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83968 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5063 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0891 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1943 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3186 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4525 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2939 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4637 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4444 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7145 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5054 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5125 




KRW


South Korean won


1 224,94 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7627 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4876 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4865 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 675,52 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5594 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,477 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,4813 




THB


Thai baht


38,914 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5944 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6223 




INR


Indian rupee


74,5655 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Special Report No 20/2016 — ‘Strengthening administrative capacity in Montenegro: progress but better results needed in many key areas’
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Montenegro, accession criteria, accession negotiations, administrative reform, economic reform, economic transition, financial control, pre-accession aid, project evaluation








C_2016330EN.01000301.xml










8.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/3





Special Report No 20/2016
‘Strengthening administrative capacity in Montenegro: progress but better results needed in many key areas’
(2016/C 330/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 20/2016 ‘Strengthening administrative capacity in Montenegro: progress but better results needed in many key areas’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu
Case C-225/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Politanò (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Betting and gambling — Restrictions — Overriding reasons of public interest — Proportionality — Public procurement — Conditions for participating in a call for tenders and assessment of economic and financial standing — Exclusion of the tenderer for not presenting certificates of economic and financial standing issued by two different banks — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 47 — Applicability)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, game of chance, invitation to tender, national law, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, service concession, tendering








C_2016402EN.01000902.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/9





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Politanò
(Case C-225/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Betting and gambling - Restrictions - Overriding reasons of public interest - Proportionality - Public procurement - Conditions for participating in a call for tenders and assessment of economic and financial standing - Exclusion of the tenderer for not presenting certificates of economic and financial standing issued by two different banks - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 47 - Applicability))
(2016/C 402/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Reggio Calabria

Party in the main proceedings

Domenico Politanò

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular Article 47, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation governing the grant of concessions in the field of betting and gambling, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fall within its scope.










2.


Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on operators wishing to respond to a call for tenders for the grant of concessions in the field of betting and gambling the obligation of providing evidence of their economic and financial standing by means of statements issued by at least two banks, without also allowing that standing to be proved by other means, where such a provision is capable of satisfying the conditions of proportionality laid down by the case-law of the Court, which is for the referring court to ascertain.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case T-360/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Dr Vita v EUIPO (69) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark 69 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, reproductive health, sexuality, trade-mark law








C_2016383EN.01001401.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/14





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Dr Vita v EUIPO (69)
(Case T-360/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark 69 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 383/19)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Dr Vita sp. z o.o. (Olsztyn, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2015 (Case R 2513/2014-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign 69 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dr Vita sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Case C-459/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Logistical support to the Iranian Government — Inclusion of the appellant’s name)
Date: 2016-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2016402EN.01001101.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/11





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. v Council of the European Union
(Case C-459/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Logistical support to the Iranian Government - Inclusion of the appellant’s name))
(2016/C 402/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.