do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Thailand, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), office supplies, originating product








C_2016329EN.01000601.xml










7.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/6





Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2016/C 329/06)
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below has expired.
This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2).









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain ring binder mechanisms


Thailand


Anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in Thailand
(OJ L 204, 9.8.2011, p. 11).


10.8.2016






(1)  OJ C 384, 18.11.2015, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(3)  The measure expired at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-650/16: Action brought on 7 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD)
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, television equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016402EN.01005801.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/58





Action brought on 7 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD)
(Case T-650/16)
(2016/C 402/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘QD’ — Application for registration No 13 633 516

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 in Case R 2046/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Reorganisation measures — Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of ‘Societatea de Asigurare-Reasigurare City Insurance SA’ (Publication made in accordance with Article 271 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, Romania, insurance company, liquidation








C_2016329EN.01000301.xml










7.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/3





Reorganisation measures
Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of ‘Societatea de Asigurare-Reasigurare City Insurance SA’
(Publication made in accordance with Article 271 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
(2016/C 329/03)






Insurance undertaking


‘Societatea de Asigurare-Reasigurare City Insurance SA’, with its registered office at str. Constantin Aricescu nr. 5-7, ground floor and semi-basement, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania, J40/3150/31.03.1998, 10392742, RA-008/10.04.2003




Date, entry into force and nature of decision


Decision No 901 of 18 April 2016 on launching the financial recovery procedure, based on a financial recovery plan, for ‘Societatea de Asigurare-Reasigurare City Insurance SA’, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 304 of 20 April 2016




Competent authorities


‘Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară’ (ASF) (Financial Supervisory Authority), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței nr. 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania




Supervisory authority


‘Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară’ (ASF) (Financial Supervisory Authority), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței nr. 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania




Administrator appointed


—




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, bankruptcy, and voluntary dissolution and winding-up in the insurance business, republished;
Law No 32/2000 on insurance and insurance supervision, as amended.
Case C-310/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair commercial practices — Directive 2005/29/EC — Articles 5 and 7 — Combined offer — Sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software — Material information relating to the price — Misleading omission — Consumer unable to obtain the same model of computer not equipped with software)
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer, consumer protection, restriction on competition, sale, selling price, software, trade information








C_2016402EN.01001001.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/10





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Vincent Deroo-Blanquart v Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA
(Case C-310/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Articles 5 and 7 - Combined offer - Sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software - Material information relating to the price - Misleading omission - Consumer unable to obtain the same model of computer not equipped with software))
(2016/C 402/12)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vincent Deroo-Blanquart

Defendant: Sony Europe Limited, successor in law to Sony France SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


A commercial practice consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software without any option for the consumer to purchase the same model of computer not equipped with pre-installed software does not in itself constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), unless such a practice is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product, a matter which is for the national court to determine by taking account of the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.










2.


In the context of a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software, the failure to indicate the price of each of those items of pre-installed software does not constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(4)(a) and Article 7 of Directive 2005/29.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Case T-645/16: Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: company in difficulties, credit institution, financial instrument, financial legislation, financing plan








C_2016402EN.01005501.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/55





Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
(Case T-645/16)
(2016/C 402/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board, apparently of 15 April 2016, at least in so far as that decision concerns the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decision.










2.


Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016329EN.01000101.xml










7.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 September 2016
(2016/C 329/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1159 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,39 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4415 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83535 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5360 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0923 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2113 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,80 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3388 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4513 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2821 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4625 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4405 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6543 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5205 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5130 




KRW


South Korean won


1 233,76 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8513 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4525 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4942 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 637,26 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5545 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,988 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,3400 




THB


Thai baht


38,677 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6445 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6702 




INR


Indian rupee


74,1975 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-204/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Victor international v EUIPO — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTOR) (EU Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VICTOR — Earlier national figurative mark victoria — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Nature of use — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016383EN.01001202.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/12





Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Victor international v EUIPO — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTOR)
(Case T-204/14) (1)

((EU Trade Mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VICTOR - Earlier national figurative mark victoria - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Nature of use - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 383/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Victor International GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the Court: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez (Alicante, Spain) and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert (Alicante) (represented by: M. Veiga Serrano, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2014 (Case R 2208/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ovejero Jiménez and Ms Becerra Guibert, on the one hand, and Victor International, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Victor International GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case C-101/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — European market for automotive glass — Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Point 13 — Value of sales — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Second subparagraph of Article 23(2) — Statutory ceiling of the fine — Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine — Amount of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction — Mono-product undertakings — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, equal treatment, exchange of information, market-sharing agreement, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU), trade information, vehicle parts








C_2016402EN.01000501.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/5





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA v European Commission
(Case C-101/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - European market for automotive glass - Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Value of sales - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Second subparagraph of Article 23(2) - Statutory ceiling of the fine - Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine - Amount of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Mono-product undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
(2016/C 402/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA (represented by: S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, and by C. Puech Baron, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
Case C-549/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Finn Frogne A/S v Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 2 — Principle of equal treatment — Obligation of transparency — Contract for the supply of a complex communications system — Difficulties in performance of the contract — Disagreement of the parties in regard to areas of responsibility — Settlement — Reduction in the scope of the contract — Transformation of a rental of equipment into a sale of equipment — Material amendment to a contract — Justification by the objective expediency of achieving a settlement agreement)
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, communications systems, equal treatment, invitation to tender, supplies contract








C_2016402EN.01000401.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/4





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Finn Frogne A/S v Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation
(Case C-549/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 2 - Principle of equal treatment - Obligation of transparency - Contract for the supply of a complex communications system - Difficulties in performance of the contract - Disagreement of the parties in regard to areas of responsibility - Settlement - Reduction in the scope of the contract - Transformation of a rental of equipment into a sale of equipment - Material amendment to a contract - Justification by the objective expediency of achieving a settlement agreement))
(2016/C 402/04)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finn Frogne A/S

Defendant: Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, following the award of a public contract, a material amendment cannot be made to that contract without a new tendering procedure being initiated even in the case where that amendment is, objectively, a type of settlement agreement, with both parties agreeing to mutual waivers, designed to bring an end to a dispute the outcome of which is uncertain, which arose from the difficulties encountered in the performance of that contract. The position would be different only if the contract documents provided for the possibility of adjusting certain conditions, even material ones, after the contract had been awarded and fixed the detailed rules for the application of that possibility.


(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case T-370/13: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Gemeente Eindhoven v Commission
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, principle of legal certainty, professional sport, sports body








C_2016410EN.01003202.xml










7.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/32





Order of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Gemeente Eindhoven v Commission
(Case T-370/13) (1)

(2016/C 410/46)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
Case T-638/16: Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe)
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, principle of legal certainty, registered trade mark, retroactivity of a law, trade-mark law








C_2016392EN.01004801.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/48





Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe)
(Case T-638/16)
(2016/C 392/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe) — Application No 10 263 895

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision so that the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 December 2014 is annulled, opposition B 001919210 accepted and EU trade mark application No 10 263 895 rejected;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Rules 19(2) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, Articles 151(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009, and the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1644 of 7 September 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Φάβα Φενεού (Fava Feneou) (PGI))
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, Peloponnese, designation of origin, labelling, leguminous vegetable, product designation








L_2016245EN.01000101.xml










14.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 245/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1644
of 7 September 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Φάβα Φενεού (Fava Feneou) (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece's application to register the name ‘Φάβα Φενεού’ (Fava Feneou) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Φάβα Φενεού’ (Fava Feneou) should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Φάβα Φενεού’ (Fava Feneou) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 September 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 164, 5.5.2016, p. 7.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).