do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-368/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conflict of jurisdiction, insurance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle








C_2016314EN.01001301.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited
(Case C-368/16)
(2016/C 314/18)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Port of Assens

Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

Question referred

Must Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) be interpreted as meaning that an injured party who is permitted under national law to bring an action directly against the company providing insurance cover for the party which caused the injury is bound by an agreement on jurisdiction validly concluded between the insurer and the policy-holder in accordance with Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Case T-560/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — LM v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official — Maintenance paid by the deceased official)
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, divorced person, maintenance obligation, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit








C_2016305EN.01003302.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/33





Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — LM v Commission
(Case T-560/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official - Maintenance paid by the deceased official))
(2016/C 305/46)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: LM (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [confidential], and asking for annulment of that order.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the appeal;










2)


Orders LM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Case T-96/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzett v EUIPO — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Figurative EU trade mark Alfredo alla Scrofa — Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO — Request for proof of genuine use — Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01003001.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/30





Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzett v EUIPO — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa)
(Case T-96/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Figurative EU trade mark Alfredo alla Scrofa - Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO - Request for proof of genuine use - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 305/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ines di Lelio (Rome) (represented by: D. De Simone, G. Orsoni and R. Fecchio, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2014 (Case R 655/2014-1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Ms di Lelio and Mr Mozzetti.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mario Mozzetti to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the name of companies subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, ceramics, household article, import (EU), originating product








C_2016245EN.01001101.xml










6.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/11





Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the name of companies subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
(2016/C 245/07)
Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware (‘tableware’) originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (1) (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013’).
Four companies located in the People’s Republic of China, whose exports to the Union of tableware are subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies of 17,9 %, have informed the Commission that their names have changed as set out below.
The companies claim that the change of name does not affect their right to benefit from the duty applied to them under their previous name.
The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of names in no way affects the findings of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013.
Therefore, the references in Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 regarding the companies should be read as below and the TARIC additional codes applied accordingly:







For


Read


TARIC code




Chaozhou Fengxi Porcelain Industrial Trade Imp & Exp. Corp


Guangdong GMT Foreign Trade Service Corp.


B402 




Chaozhou Mingyu Porcelain Industry Co., Ltd


Guangdong Mingyu Technology Joint Stock Limited Company


B453 




Fujian Profit Group Corporation


Profit Cultural & Creative Group Corporation


B556 




The Great Wall Group Holding Co., Ltd Guangdong


The Great Wall of Culture Group Holding Co., Ltd Guangdong


B731 






(1)  OJ L 131, 15.5.2013, p. 1.
Case C-373/16 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2016 by Aughinish Alumina Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Munster, State aid, control of State aid, excise duty, fuel, metallurgical industry, mineral oil, tax exemption








C_2016305EN.01001902.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/19





Appeal brought on 6 July 2016 by Aughinish Alumina Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-373/16 P)
(2016/C 305/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (‘AAL’) (represented by: C. Little, C. Waterson, solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


quash the judgment of the General Court dated 22 April 2016 in Case T-69/06 RENV II.










—


order the Commission to pay all of the costs incurred by AAL in these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

AAL submits two grounds of appeal against the Judgment.

First plea: Error in law in assessment of exceptional circumstances; infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations; failure to state reasons.

AAL submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of AAL's legitimate expectations, in particular, in assessing the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances’. This plea is split into four parts:
First part: The General Court erred considering the scope and effect of the Judgment of the Court in Case C-272/12 P.
Second part: The General Court erred in finding that AAL's situation should be distinguished from that in Case 223/85 RSV.
Third part: The General Court erred in interpreting the Demesa case law (Case C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P) as bringing an end to AAL's legitimate expectations of non-recovery.
Fourth part: The General Court erred in failing to conduct the requisite balancing exercise between public and private interests. In doing so the General Court infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and compounded its error by a failure to state reasons.

Second plea: Error in law regarding the interpretation of Article 1 (b)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999
 (1).
AAL submits that the General Court erred in law in stating and applying the conditions under which aid will be classified as existing aid. In particular, AAL submits that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 1 (b)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

OJ L 83, p. 1
Case T-97/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzetti v EUIPO — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Figurative EU trade mark ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma — Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO — Request for proof of genuine use — Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01003101.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/31





Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzetti v EUIPO — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)
(Case T-97/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Figurative EU trade mark ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma - Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO - Request for proof of genuine use - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 305/42)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ines di Lelio (Rome) (represented by: D. De Simone, G. Orsoni and R. Fecchio, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2014 (Case R 656/2014-1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Ms di Lelio and Mr Mozzetti.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mario Mozzetti to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1078 of 4 July 2016 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables (OJ L 179, 5.7.2016)
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, common organisation of markets, fruit vegetable, import (EU), import price, pip fruit, stone fruit








L_2016180EN.01005801.xml










6.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 180/58







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1078 of 4 July 2016 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 179 of 5 July 2016
)


On page 30, the Annex should read as follows:




                           ‘ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables








(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MA


135,3




ZZ


135,3




0709 93 10 


TR


135,3




ZZ


135,3




0805 50 10 


AR


179,2




BO


231,1




CL


209,5




MA


174,9




UY


197,4




ZA


181,9




ZZ


195,7




0808 10 80 


AR


124,0




BR


102,5




CL


133,8




CN


133,6




NZ


139,5




US


149,7




UY


67,7




ZA


111,9




ZZ


120,3




0808 30 90 


AR


116,2




CL


129,9




ZA


115,0




ZZ


120,4




0809 10 00 


TR


229,0




ZZ


229,0




0809 29 00 


TR


353,5




ZZ


353,5




0809 30 10 , 0809 30 90 


TR


126,8




ZZ


126,8




0809 40 05 


TR


160,5




ZZ


160,5









(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 of 27 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as regards the update of the nomenclature of countries and territories (OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7). Code “ZZ” stands for “of other origin”.’
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016245EN.01000501.xml










6.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 July 2016
(2016/C 245/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1146 




JPY


Japanese yen


113,50 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4399 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84997 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4329 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0837 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3197 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,071 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,33 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4457 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5185 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2550 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4902 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4418 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6474 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5522 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5040 




KRW


South Korean won


1 289,88 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4420 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4379 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5025 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 633,23 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4897 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,386 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,6075 




THB


Thai baht


39,163 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6655 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8069 




INR


Indian rupee


75,2034 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 July 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Union programmes (05616/2014 — C8-0043/2014 — 2013/0420(NLE))
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: Azerbaijan, EU programme, Eastern Partnership, cooperation agreement (EU), framework agreement, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement








C_2018101EN.01017801.xml










16.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/178





P8_TA(2016)0301
Participation of Azerbaijan in Union programmes ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 July 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Union programmes (05616/2014 — C8-0043/2014 — 2013/0420(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 101/18)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (05616/2014),










—


having regard to the draft Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Union programmes (05618/2014),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 212 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0043/2014),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0210/2016),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8053 — Aviva/Group CM-11/Office building) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, merger control, real estate business








C_2016245EN.01000101.xml










6.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8053 — Aviva/Group CM-11/Office building)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 245/01)
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 French 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 32016M8053. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-372/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
Date: 2016-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Syria, anti-discriminatory measure, divorce, judicial cooperation, matrimonial law, national law








C_2016343EN.01003302.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/33





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
(Case C-372/16)
(2016/C 343/45)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Questions referred







1.


Does the scope of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (1) of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10), as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include cases of private divorce, in this instance one pronounced by unilateral declaration of a spouse before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
In applying Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 [when examining] Article 10 thereof in cases of private divorce,






(1)


is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the applicable law pursuant to Article 8 grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to procedural and substantive conditions different from those applicable to access for the first spouse,
or










(2)


does the applicability of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question?














3.


If the answer to Question 2(2) is in the affirmative:
Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule?






(1)  OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10.