do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-627/16: Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2016-08-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, infringement of EU law, single payment scheme, vineyard, viticulture








C_2016392EN.01004701.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/47





Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-627/16)
(2016/C 392/61)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2016) 3753) (‘the contested decision’) in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with the single area payment (SAPS) in a total amount of EUR 84 272,83, in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with investment in the wine sector in a total amount of EUR 636 516,20, and in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with cross-compliance conditions in a total amount of EUR 29 485 612,55;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies in relation to the single area payment scheme (SAPS) on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.
In relation to investment in the wine sector, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.
In relation to cross-compliance conditions, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






—


The first plea in law alleges breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.










—


In the alternative, the applicant relies on the second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if the complaints contested in the first plea in law constituted a breach of EU law (quod non), the Commission incorrectly assessed the seriousness of that breach and the financial damage to the EU.
Case T-623/16: Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)
Date: 2016-08-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016383EN.01002302.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/23





Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)
(Case T-623/16)
(2016/C 383/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MAIN AUTO WHEELS’ — Application No 12 863 643

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2016 in Case R 2189/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-08-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016319EN.01000201.xml










31.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 August 2016
(2016/C 319/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1168 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,27 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4448 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85170 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5008 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0951 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2873 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,025 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3436 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4505 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2977 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4787 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4562 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6631 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5427 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5196 




KRW


South Korean won


1 244,47 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0537 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4565 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4846 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 814,35 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5205 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,797 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,4564 




THB


Thai baht


38,608 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5991 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7542 




INR


Indian rupee


74,8703 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-622/16: Action brought on 31 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)
Date: 2016-08-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gift item, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016383EN.01002301.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/23





Action brought on 31 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)
(Case T-622/16)
(2016/C 383/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘Alles wird gut’ — Application No 14 170 062

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 in Case R 212/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 31 August 2016 in the case of Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring (Case E-11/16)
Date: 2016-08-31
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, claim, damages, insurance company, national law, social security legislation, social-security benefit








C_2017120EN.01002601.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/26





Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 31 August 2016 in the case of Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring
(Case E-11/16)
(2017/C 120/14)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 31 August 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 7 September 2016, for an advisory opinion in the case of Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring on the following questions:
Question 1, concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1)(a) of the Coordination Regulation:
When an institution in the injured party’s home country that is responsible for providing benefits, under that country’s legislation ‘is subrogated to’ the injured party’s right against a ‘third party’, other EEA States must recognise the institution’s subrogation to the claim. Does this mean:






—


that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution and that the existence and scope of the claim depends on the home country’s legislation,










—


that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution and that the existence and scope of the claim depends on the legislation in the country where the injury occurred, or










—


that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution, but that the Coordination Regulation has no bearing on the choice of law as regards the existence and scope of the claim?




Question 2, concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1)(b) of the Coordination Regulation:
Where the institution responsible for providing benefits has a direct right against the third party, other EEA States shall recognise such rights. Does this mean:






—


that other EEA States must recognise the right in full, including that its existence and scope depends on the home country’s legislation, or










—


that other EEA States must recognise the right, subject to those limitations that follow from the rules of law in the country where the injury occurred?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8160 — Goldman Sachs/Altor/Navico/C-MAP) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-08-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, electronics industry, industrial manufacturing, measuring equipment, merger control








C_2016319EN.01000101.xml










31.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8160 — Goldman Sachs/Altor/Navico/C-MAP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 319/01)
On 23 August 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 the 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 32016M8160. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.