do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-471/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Seattle Genetics Inc. v Österreichisches Patentamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Proprietary medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 13(1) — Supplementary protection certificate — Duration — Concept of the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Union’ — Whether account is to be taken of the date of the decision granting authorisation or the date on which notification was given of that decision)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community certification, industrial property, market approval, medicinal product








C_2015398EN.01000601.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/6





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Seattle Genetics Inc. v Österreichisches Patentamt
(Case C-471/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 13(1) - Supplementary protection certificate - Duration - Concept of the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Union’ - Whether account is to be taken of the date of the decision granting authorisation or the date on which notification was given of that decision))
(2015/C 398/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Seattle Genetics Inc.

Defendant: Österreichisches Patentamt

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the [European Union]’ is determined by EU law;










2.


Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009 is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the [European Union]’ within the meaning of that provision is the date on which notification of the decision granting marketing authorisation was given to the addressee of the decision.






(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2015 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures (10010/2015 — C8-0182/2015 — 2013/0021(NLE))
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: EU control, drug addiction, drug traffic, health control, health risk, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, stimulant, toxicology








C_2017349EN.01008401.xml










17.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/84





P8_TA(2015)0326
Subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2015 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures (10010/2015 — C8-0182/2015 — 2013/0021(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2017/C 349/15)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (10010/2015),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on Transitional Provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0182/2015),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0265/2015),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, p. 32.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015329EN.01000201.xml










6.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 October 2015
(2015/C 329/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1236




JPY


Japanese yen


135,07




DKK


Danish krone


7,4605




GBP


Pound sterling


0,74020




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3513




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0938




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3870




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,122




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,90




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2449




RON


Romanian leu


4,4168




TRY


Turkish lira


3,3649




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5853




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4735




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7080




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7272




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5984




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,86




ZAR


South African rand


15,2697




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1417




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6263




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 204,96




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9090




PHP


Philippine peso


52,193




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1550




THB


Thai baht


40,854




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4059




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7147




INR


Indian rupee


73,3711






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-216/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Technion and Technion Research v Commission (Funding — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Recovery of sums paid by the Commission in connection with a research contract in line with the conclusions of a financial audit — Set-off of claims — Reclassification in part of the action — Application for a declaration that a contractual claim does not exist — Arbitration clause — Eligible costs — Unjust enrichment — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, audit, claim, financial aid, redemption, reimbursement of aid








C_2015398EN.01002701.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/27





Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Technion and Technion Research v Commission
(Case T-216/12) (1)

((Funding - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Recovery of sums paid by the Commission in connection with a research contract in line with the conclusions of a financial audit - Set-off of claims - Reclassification in part of the action - Application for a declaration that a contractual claim does not exist - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Unjust enrichment - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 398/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu and F. Moro, acting as Agents, assisted initially by L. Defalque and S. Woog, and subsequently by L. Defalque and J. Thiry, lawyers)

Re:

First, application for annulment, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, of the Commission’s set-off decision contained in the letter of 13 March 2012, addressed to Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, and seeking recovery of the sum of EUR 97  118,69, corresponding to the amount of the adjusted sums, plus interest, for contract No 034984 (Mosaica), following the conclusions of the financial audit concerning, inter alia, that contract concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-2006), and, secondly, application for a declaration, on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, that the claim which the Commission claims to have against Technion under the Mosaica contract and which is the subject matter of the disputed set-off does not exist.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7632 — Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2015329EN.01000101.xml










6.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7632 — Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 329/01)
On 24 July 2015, 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 32015M7632. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-59/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) — Recovery of an export refund — Limitation period — Date from which time runs (dies a quo) — Act or omission by the economic operator — Occurrence of the prejudice — Continuous infringement — Single infringement)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damage, export refund, general budget (EU), infringement of EU law, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2015398EN.01000301.xml










30.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-59/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) - Recovery of an export refund - Limitation period - Date from which time runs (dies a quo) - Act or omission by the economic operator - Occurrence of the prejudice - Continuous infringement - Single infringement))
(2015/C 398/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where the infringement of a provision of EU law was discovered only after the occurrence of the prejudice, the limitation period begins to run from the time when both the economic operator’s act or omission that infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the European Union or budgets managed by it have occurred.










2.


Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a prejudice occurs as soon as the decision made to grant the export refund to the exporter concerned has been made.






(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
Case F-119/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — FE v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Inclusion on the reserve list — Decision of the appointing authority not to recruit a successful candidate — Respective jurisdictions of the selection board and of the appointing authority — Eligibility criteria for the competition — Minimum period of professional experience required — Methods of calculation — Manifest error of assessment by the selection board — None — Loss of an opportunity to be recruited — Compensation)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: competition (EU), indemnification, professional experience








C_2015381EN.01006302.xml










16.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/63





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — FE v Commission
(Case F-119/14) (1)

((Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Inclusion on the reserve list - Decision of the appointing authority not to recruit a successful candidate - Respective jurisdictions of the selection board and of the appointing authority - Eligibility criteria for the competition - Minimum period of professional experience required - Methods of calculation - Manifest error of assessment by the selection board - None - Loss of an opportunity to be recruited - Compensation))
(2015/C 381/89)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FE (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision ending the procedure initiated with a view to appointing the applicant — included on a reserve list for a competition — as an official, after informing him that the DG concerned had given its approval for his engagement, and finally finding that he had insufficient professional experience.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 17 December 2013 by which the European Commission refused to recruit FE;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay FE the sum of EUR 10  000;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by FE.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 56.
Case C-500/14: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino) — Ford Motor Company v Wheeltrims srl Reference for a preliminary ruling — Designs — Directive 98/71/EC — Article 14 — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 110 — So-called ‘repair’ clause — Use by a third party of a mark, in the absence of the proprietor’s consent, for spare parts or accessories for motor vehicles identical to the goods in relation to which the trade mark is registered
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: registered trade mark, spare part, vehicle parts








C_2016038EN.01001401.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/14





Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino) — Ford Motor Company v Wheeltrims srl
(Case C-500/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Designs - Directive 98/71/EC - Article 14 - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 110 - So-called ‘repair’ clause - Use by a third party of a mark, in the absence of the proprietor’s consent, for spare parts or accessories for motor vehicles identical to the goods in relation to which the trade mark is registered)
(2016/C 038/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ford Motor Company

Defendant: Wheeltrims srl

Operative part of the order

Article 14 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs and Article 110 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as precluding, by way of derogation to the provisions of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, a manufacturer of spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles, such as hub caps, from affixing to its goods a sign which is identical to a registered trade mark, inter alia for such goods, by a manufacturer of motor vehicles, without the consent of the latter, on the ground that the use which would thus be made of that trade mark constitutes the only means of repairing the vehicle at issue by restoring its original appearance as a complex product.


(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case C-69/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Res judicata — Recovery of undue payments — Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law — Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law — Application for revision of such a decision — National legislation allowing the revision, in the light of later preliminary rulings given by the Court, of final decisions of a court or tribunal made exclusively in administrative proceedings)
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, primacy of EU law, tax collection








C_2015389EN.01000601.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/6





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor
(Case C-69/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Res judicata - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law - Application for revision of such a decision - National legislation allowing the revision, in the light of later preliminary rulings given by the Court, of final decisions of a court or tribunal made exclusively in administrative proceedings))
(2015/C 389/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dragoș Constantin Târșia

Defendants: Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings, a situation where there is no possibility for a national court to revise a final decision of a court or tribunal made in the course of civil proceedings when that decision is found to be incompatible with an interpretation of EU law upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union after the date on which that decision became final, even though such a possibility does exist as regards final decisions of a court or tribunal incompatible with EU law made in the course of administrative proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2015 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting 4-iodo- 2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (10011/2015 — C8-0185/2015 — 2014/0183(NLE))
Date: 2015-10-06
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: EU control, drug addiction, drug traffic, health control, health risk, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, psychotropic substance, toxicology








C_2017349EN.01008601.xml










17.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/86





P8_TA(2015)0328
Subjecting 25I-NBOMe, AH-7921, MDPV and methoxetamine to control measures *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 October 2015 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting 4-iodo- 2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (10011/2015 — C8-0185/2015 — 2014/0183(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2017/C 349/17)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (10011/2015),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on Transitional Provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0185/2015),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0264/2015),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, p. 32.