do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-435/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Acacia Srl and Rolando D’Amato v Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, product design, vehicle parts








C_2016419EN.01002901.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Acacia Srl and Rolando D’Amato v Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
(Case C-435/16)
(2016/C 419/38)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants on a point of law: Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato

Respondent on a point of law: Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

Questions referred







1.


Is the application of the bar to protection as provided for in Article 110(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (1) limited to fixed shape parts, namely those parts whose shape is in principle immutably determined by the appearance of the product as a whole and cannot therefore be freely selected by the customer, such as rims for motor vehicles?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Is the application of the bar to protection as provided for in Article 110(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 limited only to the supply of products of an identical design, which thus correspond also in colour and size to the original products?










3.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Does the bar to protection as provided for in Article 110(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 apply in favour of the supplier of a product that fundamentally infringes the design at issue only if this supplier objectively ensures that his product can be purchased exclusively for repair purposes and not for other purposes as well, such as the upgrading or customisation of the product as a whole?










4.


If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
Which measures must the supplier of a product that fundamentally infringes the design at issue take in order to objectively ensure that his product can be purchased exclusively for repair purposes and not for other purposes as well, such as the upgrading or customisation of the product as a whole? Is it enough:






(a)


that the supplier includes a note in the sales brochure to the effect that any sale takes place exclusively for repair purposes so as to restore the original appearance of the product as a whole; or










(b)


is it necessary that the supplier make delivery conditional on the customer (traders and consumers) declaring in writing that the product supplied is to be used for repair purposes only?










(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).
Case C-434/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 4 August 2016 — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, examination, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2016364EN.01001101.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/11






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 4 August 2016 — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner
(Case C-434/16)
(2016/C 364/06)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peter Nowak

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Questions referred







1.


Is information recorded in/as answers given by a candidate during a professional examination capable of being personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC (1)?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is that all or some of such information may be personal data within the meaning of the Directive, what factors are relevant in determining whether in any given case such script is personal data, and what weight should be given to such factors?






(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

OJ L 281, p. 31
Case C-440/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP AND SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP v EUIPO — SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP AND STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP (PARK REGIS)
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017095EN.01000303.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/3





Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP AND SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP v EUIPO — SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP AND STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP (PARK REGIS)
(Case C-440/16 P)
(2017/C 095/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (represented by: D. Farnsworth, solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Sheraton International IP LLC
By order of 12 January 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Annual Report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 866/2004 of 29 April 2004 and the situation resulting from its application
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Cyprus, Türkiye, United Kingdom, accession to the European Union, border control, economic consequence, foreign national, illegal migration, trade policy

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.8.2016  SWD(2016) 281 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Annual Report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 866/2004 of 29 April 2004 and the situation resulting from its application {COM(2016) 494 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Annual Report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 866/2004 of 29 April 2004 and the situation resulting from its 
application 

 TABLE I: 

Overview table summarising the monthly reports of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce according to Article 8 of Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1480/2004 in EUR 

2 

 
 
Source: Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE II: 

Value of goods crossing the Green Line reported by the authorities of the Republic of 
Cyprus for 2015 

Source: table based on data received from Cyprus Customs and Excise Department 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
TABLE III: 

Value of goods which crossed the Green Line and value of goods for which 
accompanying documents were issued by the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce 

)

R
U
E

(

e
d
a
r
t

f
o
e
u
l
a
V

500.000,00

450.000,00

400.000,00

350.000,00

300.000,00

250.000,00

200.000,00

150.000,00

100.000,00

50.000,00

0,00

Value of trade which
effectively crossed the Green
Line

Value of trade for which
accompanying documents
were issued

Source 
- For the value of goods for which accompanying documents were issued: Turkish Cypriot Chamber of 
Commerce 
- For the value of goods which crossed the Green Line: Cyprus Customs and Excise Department

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE IV:  

Most traded products  

Source: table based on data received from Cyprus Customs and Excise Department

6 

 
 
 
 
TABLE V:  

Development of issued accompanying documents for the most traded goods in 2015 (highest value) 

Source:  Graph based on data on issued accompanying documents received from the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce 

7 

 
 
 
 
TABLE VI 

Source: CYPOL 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE VII 

Source: CYPOL 

9
Case T-447/16: Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread)
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2016350EN.01002701.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/27





Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread)
(Case T-447/16)
(2016/C 350/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark (representation of a tyre tread — EU trade mark No 2 319 176)

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 2583/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it declared the trademark invalid and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of proceedings before the Office.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b)(e) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-436/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, civil law, commercial law, conflict of jurisdiction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle








C_2016392EN.01001101.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd
(Case C-436/16)
(2016/C 392/14)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias

Respondents: Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd

Question referred

Does the jurisdiction clause which has been agreed pursuant to Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) between companies and in the present case is included in the privately-executed agreement of 14 November 2007 between the first and second respondents, Article 10 of which provides that ‘the present agreement shall be governed by English law, it shall be subject to English jurisdiction and any dispute arising from or in connection with it shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales’, also encompass, as regards acts and omissions of the organs of the second respondent, who represent it and give rise to liability on its part pursuant to Article 71 of the Greek Civil Code, the persons responsible who acted in the performance of their duties and are liable under that article, in conjunction with Article 926 of the Greek Civil Code, jointly and severally with the company, a legal person?


(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).
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1339 of 4 August 2016 amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU police mission, Libya, border control, cross-border cooperation, international security








L_2016212EN.01011101.xml










5.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 212/111








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1339
of 4 August 2016
         
amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)


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 22 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/233/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya).












(2)


On 7 December 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/2276 (2) amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP until 21 February 2016.












(3)


On 15 February 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/207 (3) amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP for six months, until 21 August 2016.












(4)


On 9 June 2016, the Political and Security Committee agreed that EUBAM Libya should be extended by one year.












(5)


Decision 2013/233/CFSP should be amended accordingly.












(6)


EUBAM Libya 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 2013/233/CFSP is amended as follows:






(1)


in Article 13(1), the following paragraph is added:
‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUBAM Libya for the period from 22 August 2016 to 21 August 2017 shall be EUR 17 000 000.’;










(2)


in Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘It shall apply until 21 August 2017.’.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 4 August 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. LAJČÁK
            





(1)  Council Decision 2013/233/CFSP of 22 May 2013 on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (OJ L 138, 24.5.2013, p. 15).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2276 of 7 December 2015 amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (OJ L 322, 8.12.2015, p. 51).

(3)  Decision (CFSP) 2016/207 of 15 February 2016 amending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (OJ L 39, 16.2.2016, p. 45).
Case C-438/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, petroleum exploration, public sector








C_2016392EN.01001201.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/12





Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12
(Case C-438/16 P)
(2016/C 392/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles

Form of order sought







—


Annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12 French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles v European Commission;










—


Refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh examination and reserve the costs of the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal in support of its appeal which all concern infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and more particularly errors of law concerning the manner in which it was shown that there was an advantage to an undertaking flowing from an implied unlimited guarantee arising as a result of its status.
By its first ground of appeal, the Commission is of the opinion that the General Court committed an error of interpretation as regards the concept of aid scheme and by failing to take account of the ability of a measure to confer an advantage, which involves an error of law as to the nature of the evidence to be adduced by the Commission in order to establish the existence of an advantage to an undertaking flowing from its status as a publicly owned establishment of an industrial and commercial nature (EPIC).
The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law committed by the General Court as regards the scope of the simple presumption of the existence of an advantage flowing from an implied unlimited guarantee and the means by which it may be overturned.
The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law committed by the General Court as regards the scope of the presumption of advantage flowing from an unlimited guarantee: that presumption ought also, logically, to apply to the relationships of the undertaking to which the guarantee is granted with its suppliers and clients.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8019 — Advent International/Nuplex Industries) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, paints and varnishes, resin








C_2016282EN.01001301.xml










4.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8019 — Advent International/Nuplex Industries)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 282/08)






1.


On 27 July 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Advent International Corporation (‘AIC’, USA), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Nuplex Industries Ltd (‘Nuplex’, New Zealand), by way of purchase of shares. The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 25 May 2016, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 22 June 2016.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Advent: globally active private equity investor, who among others controls Allnex Belgium SA, a global producer of industrial coating resins;
—   Nuplex: global producer of industrial coating resins.










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.










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 number M.8019 — Advent International/Nuplex Industries, 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’).
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a Contracting Entity — extension of deadline
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, airport, award of contract, market access








C_2016282EN.01001801.xml










4.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/18





Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a Contracting Entity — extension of deadline
(2016/C 282/10)
On 16 January 2015 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 19 January 2015.
This request is made by Flughafen Wien and concerns activities relating to the exploitation of a geographical area for the purposes of provision of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air on the territory of Austria. The relevant notice was published on page 22 of OJ C 93 of 20 March 2015. A suspension notice was published on page 23 of OJ C 217 of 2 July 2015.
Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 of Annex IV to Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request. Given that the need to obtain and analyse additional information, and with the agreement of the applicant, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended until 31 October 2016.


(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8157 — McKesson/Blackstone/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: data processing, economic concentration, information technology industry, market research, merger control, public opinion








C_2016282EN.01001101.xml










4.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8157 — McKesson/Blackstone/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 282/06)






1.


On 27 July 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings McKesson Corporation (‘McKesson’, United States) and The Blackstone Group L.P. (‘Blackstone’, United States) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly-created joint venture (the ‘JV’, United States), by way of contribution to the JV of assets and shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


McKesson: provider of services and products for the healthcare industry,










—


Blackstone: global alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory services,










—


the JV will provide healthcare information technology services, software and analytics, network solutions and technology-enabled services.














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 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.8157 — McKesson/Blackstone/JV, 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.