do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Winding-Up Proceedings — Decision to commence winding-up proceeding for ‘Societatea FATA Asigurări S.A.’ (Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, commercial law, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2016246EN.01000501.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/5





Winding-Up Proceedings
Decision to commence winding-up proceeding for ‘Societatea FATA Asigurări S.A.’
(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)
(2016/C 246/06)






Insurance undertaking


‘Societatea FATA ASIGURĂRI S.A.’, with its registered office at Șoseaua Pantelimon, No 10-12, Tower Block, Obor Business Centre, Floors 7 and 8, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania
J40/2739/23.3.1998, Tax Reference No 10347059, RA-039/10.4.2003




Date, entry into force and nature of the decision


8.6.2016 — Decision 1200 of 8 June 2016 ordering the approval of the voluntary dissolution and winding-up of FATA ASIGURĂRI S.A.




Competent authorities


The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței No 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania




Supervisory authority


The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței No 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania




Liquidator appointed


KPMG RESTRUCTURING SPRL




Applicable law


Romania
Government Emergency Order No 93/2012 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the Financial Supervisory Authority, approved with amendments by Law No 113/2013, as amended;
Law No 503/2004 on financial recovery, insolvency, voluntary dissolution and winding-up in the insurance business, republished.
Case C-494/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v Delta Center a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2004/48/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Notion of ‘intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’ — Tenant of market halls subletting sales points — Possibility of an injunction against that tenant — Article 11)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, business lease, electronic commerce, industrial counterfeiting, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016335EN.01002601.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/26





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v Delta Center a.s.
(Case C-494/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Notion of ‘intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’ - Tenant of market halls subletting sales points - Possibility of an injunction against that tenant - Article 11))
(2016/C 335/35)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading BV, Rado Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste SA, Burberry Ltd

Defendant: Delta Center a.s.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the tenant of market halls who sublets the various sales points situated in those halls to market-traders, some of whom use their pitches in order to sell counterfeit branded products, falls within the concept of ‘an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’ within the meaning of that provision.










2.


The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for an injunction within the meaning of that provision against an intermediary who provides a service relating to the letting of sales points in market halls are identical to those for injunctions which may be addressed to intermediaries in an online marketplace, set out by the Court in the judgment of 12 July 2011 in L’Oréal and Others (C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474).






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Special Report No 15/2016 — ‘Did the Commission effectively manage the Humanitarian aid provided to populations affected by conflicts in the African Great Lakes Region?’
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, EAC countries, EU aid, Rwanda, emergency aid, humanitarian aid, project evaluation, refugee, war victim








C_2016246EN.01000401.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/4





Special Report No 15/2016
‘Did the Commission effectively manage the Humanitarian aid provided to populations affected by conflicts in the African Great Lakes Region?’
(2016/C 246/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 15/2016 ‘Did the Commission effectively manage the Humanitarian aid provided to populations affected by conflicts in the African Great Lakes Region?’ 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-567/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Non-exclusive licence agreement — Patent — No infringement — Obligation to pay royalties)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, patent, patents licence








C_2016335EN.01000801.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/8





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-567/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Non-exclusive licence agreement - Patent - No infringement - Obligation to pay royalties))
(2016/C 335/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Genentech Inc.

Defendants: Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition on the licensee, under a licence agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a requirement to pay a royalty for the use of a patented technology for the entire period in which that agreement was in effect, in the event of the revocation or non-infringement of a licensed patent, provided that the licensee was able freely to terminate that agreement by giving reasonable notice.


(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Case C-210/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 1698/2005 — Early retirement of farmers and farm workers — Definitive cessation of all commercial farming activity)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, aid recipient, cessation of farming, early retirement, eligibility criteria, farmer, fund (EU), pension scheme, rural development








C_2016335EN.01002001.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/20





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
(Case C-210/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 1698/2005 - Early retirement of farmers and farm workers - Definitive cessation of all commercial farming activity))
(2016/C 335/26)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
Case C-70/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Emmanuel Lebek v Janusz Domino (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(2) — Defendant not entering an appearance — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant in sufficient time — Concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ — Application for relief — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 19(4) — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Period within which an application for relief may be submitted)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, appeal, civil law, commercial law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle








C_2016335EN.01001201.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/12





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Emmanuel Lebek v Janusz Domino
(Case C-70/15) (1)

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(2) - Defendant not entering an appearance - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Grounds for refusing enforcement - Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant in sufficient time - Concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ - Application for relief - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 19(4) - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Period within which an application for relief may be submitted))
(2016/C 335/15)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Emmanuel Lebek

Respondent: Janusz Domino

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ referred to in Article 34(2) 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 must be interpreted as also including applications for relief when the period for bringing an ordinary challenge has expired.










2.


The last subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as excluding the application of provisions of national law concerning the system of applying for relief where the period for filing such applications, as specified in the communication of a Member State to which that provision refers, has expired.






(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case C-514/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — HIT Groep BV v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Upper limit of the fine — Total turnover in the ‘preceding business year’ — Reference to a business year other than the one preceding the adoption of the contested decision — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, competition, financial year, fine, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality, steel, turnover








C_2016364EN.01000901.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/9






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — HIT Groep BV v European Commission
(Case C-514/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Upper limit of the fine - Total turnover in the ‘preceding business year’ - Reference to a business year other than the one preceding the adoption of the contested decision - Principle of proportionality))
(2016/C 364/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: HIT Groep BV (represented by: G. van der Wal and L. Parret, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Hit Groep BV shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1108 of 7 July 2016 amending Decision 2013/354/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU police mission, Palestine, operation of the Institutions, police cooperation








L_2016183EN.01006501.xml










8.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 183/65








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1108
of 7 July 2016
         
amending Decision 2013/354/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 3 July 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/354/CFSP (1) which continued EUPOL COPPS as from 1 July 2013.












(2)


On 2 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1064 (2) which amended Decision 2013/354/CFSP and extended EUPOL COPPS from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.












(3)


Following the Interim Strategic Review of EUPOL COPPS, the Mission should be extended for a further period of 12 months, to 30 June 2017.












(4)


Decision 2013/354/CFSP should be amended accordingly.












(5)


EUPOL COPPS will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2013/354/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 12(1), the following subparagraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL COPPS for the period from 1 July 2016 until 30 June 2017 shall be EUR 10 320 000’;










(2)


in Article 15, the third paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘It shall expire on 30 June 2017.’.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall apply from 1 July 2016.




Done at Brussels, 7 July 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. LAJČÁK
            





(1)  Council Decision 2013/354/CFSP of 3 July 2013 on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (OJ L 185, 4.7.2013, p. 12).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1064 of 2 July 2015 amending Decision 2013/354/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (OJ L 174, 3.7.2015, p. 21).
Case C-523/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Fines — Appraisal of the ability to pay — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Taking into account facts subsequent to the contested decision — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, equal treatment, exchange of information, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality, right to justice, sanction (EU), steel, trade information








C_2016343EN.01001501.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/15





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
(Case C-523/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Appraisal of the ability to pay - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Taking into account facts subsequent to the contested decision - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment - Right to effective judicial protection))
(2016/C 343/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Stadler, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
Case C-214/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA (Preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 55 — Contract notice — Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices — Determination criteria — Article 7(c) — Value of the contract — Threshold not reached — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, building industry, invitation to tender, works contract








C_2016343EN.01001002.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/10





Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA
(Case C-214/15) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 55 - Contract notice - Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices - Determination criteria - Article 7(c) - Value of the contract - Threshold not reached - Certain cross-border interest - Lack of information - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2016/C 343/14)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar

Defendant: Sá Machado & Filhos SA

In the presence of: Norcep Construções e Empreendimentos Lda

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal), by decision of 9 April 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
Case C-510/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence — Justification — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, equal treatment, exchange of information, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), steel, trade information








C_2016343EN.01001401.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/14





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission
(Case C-510/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Burden of proof - Presumption of innocence - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence - Justification - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment))
(2016/C 343/21)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Szczodrowski, Agents, and by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, avocats)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7815 — Groupe Bouygues/ADP/Meridiam/Ravinala Airports) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: airport, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services








C_2016246EN.01000201.xml










7.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7815 — Groupe Bouygues/ADP/Meridiam/Ravinala Airports)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 246/03)
On 1 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 French 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 32016M7815. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.