do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-351/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Fines — Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct — Payment of the fine by the subsidiary — Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union — Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest — Action for annulment — Challengeable acts — Effective judicial protection)
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, chemical industry, fine, parent company, price agreement, subsidiary








C_2017070EN.01000401.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/4





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA
(Case C-351/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Fines - Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct - Payment of the fine by the subsidiary - Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union - Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest - Action for annulment - Challengeable acts - Effective judicial protection))
(2017/C 070/05)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Perrin, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA;










3.


Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-313/16: Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, financial solvency, mushroom-growing, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2017078EN.01004302.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/43





Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission
(Case T-313/16) (1)

(2017/C 078/61)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement continuing the International Science and Technology Center (08558/2016 — C8-0214/2016 — 2016/0120(NLE))
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: agreement (EU), institutional activity, international cooperation, ratification of an agreement, scientific research, technology, world organisation








C_2018242EN.01004901.xml










10.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/49





P8_TA(2017)0007
Conclusion of the Agreement continuing the International Science and Technology Center ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement continuing the International Science and Technology Center (08558/2016 — C8-0214/2016 — 2016/0120(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 242/10)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (08558/2016),










—


having regard to the draft Agreement continuing the International Science and Technology Center (12681/2015),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 31(1) and 37 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 180 and 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0214/2016),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0363/2016),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the Agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of participating Parties to the Agreement.
Special Report No 34/2016 — ‘Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain’
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: agricultural productivity, fight against wastage, food consumption, food safety, foodstuff, wastage, waste, waste management








C_2017018EN.01002401.xml










19.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/24





Special Report No 34/2016
‘Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain’
(2017/C 18/08)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 34/2016 ‘Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain’ 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 T-40/17: Action brought on 19 January 2017 — Habermaaß v EUIPO — Here Global (h)
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017086EN.01003002.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/30





Action brought on 19 January 2017 — Habermaaß v EUIPO — Here Global (h)
(Case T-40/17)
(2017/C 086/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Habermaaß GmbH AG (Bad Rodach, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder, H. Gauß and E. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Here Global BV (Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘h’ — Application for registration No 12 833 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2016 in Case R 53/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 41 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the legal principles to be considered when applying and interpreting the Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 135(4) of the Rules of procedure.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8351 — Apollo Management/Lumileds Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control








C_2017018EN.01003001.xml










19.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/30





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8351 — Apollo Management/Lumileds Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 18/14)






1.


On 12 January 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Apollo Management, L.P. (‘Apollo’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Lumileds Holding B.V. (‘Lumileds’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Apollo: private investments,
—   for Lumileds: manufacture and sale of conventional and light emitting diode (‘LED’) of lighting products worldwide.










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 M.8351 — Apollo Management/Lumileds Holding 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-756/15: Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, delivery, hotel industry, paper, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017078EN.01004301.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/43





Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)
(Case T-756/15) (1)

(2017/C 078/60)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case C-27/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 19 January 2017 — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: branch, competition law, damages, financial loss, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, selling at a loss, unlawful agreement








C_2017104EN.01003501.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/35





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 19 January 2017 — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’
(Case C-27/17)
(2017/C 104/50)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation

Defendants: Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’

Questions referred







1.


In the circumstances of the present case, is the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be understood as meaning the place of conclusion of the defendants’ unlawful agreement infringing Article 82(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 102(c) TFEU), or the place of commission of acts by which the financial benefit obtained from that agreement was exploited, by means of predatory pricing (cross-subsidisation) when competing with the applicant in the same relevant markets?










2.


In the present case, can the damage (loss of income) suffered by the applicant on account of the specified unlawful acts of the defendants be regarded as damage for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation?










3.


Are the operations of the branch of Air Baltic Corporation in the Republic of Lithuania, in the circumstances of the present case, to be regarded as operations of a branch within the meaning of Article 5(5) of the Brussels I Regulation?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case T-399/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan — Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, legal profession, professional society, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01002501.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/25





Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)
(Case T-399/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan - Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 063/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers (Conegliano, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato and F. Gatti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and C. Martini, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Panama, Panama)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 May 2015 (Case R 1657/2014 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Morgan & Morgan and Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case C-344/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Commissioners — Ireland) — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 13(1), second subparagraph — Activity of managing road infrastructure and making it available on payment of a toll — Activities engaged in by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority — Presence of private operators — Significant distortions of competition — Existence of actual or potential competition)
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, VAT, private sector, public authorities, public institution, restriction on competition, road transport, toll








C_2017070EN.01000302.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/3





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Commissioners — Ireland) — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners
(Case C-344/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 13(1), second subparagraph - Activity of managing road infrastructure and making it available on payment of a toll - Activities engaged in by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority - Presence of private operators - Significant distortions of competition - Existence of actual or potential competition))
(2017/C 070/04)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Appeal Commissioners

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: National Roads Authority

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such that in the main proceedings, a body governed by public law which carries on an activity consisting in providing access to a road on payment of a toll may not be regarded as competing with private operators who collect tolls on other toll roads pursuant to an agreement with the public law body concerned under national statutory provisions.


(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case T-701/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Stock Polska v EUIPO — Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA — Earlier national word mark Lubeca — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the public — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01002602.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/26





Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Stock Polska v EUIPO — Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA)
(Case T-701/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA - Earlier national word mark Lubeca - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Level of attention of the public - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 063/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stock Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (Lübeck, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2015 (Case R 1788/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lass & Steffen Wein- und Spirituosen-Import and Stock Polska.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Stock Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.