do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-564/15: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (Actions for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action programme, award of contract, financial aid, invitation to tender, trans-European network, transport network








C_2016454EN.01002601.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/26






Order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission
(Case T-564/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 454/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the email of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) of 17 July 2015, relating to the proposal submitted by the applicant in response to the call for proposals launched under the Connecting Europe Facility on the basis of the Multi-Annual Work Programme adopted in 2014 pursuant to Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 1921 of 26 March 2014 establishing the 2014 Multi-Annual Work Programme for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8209 — GLM/Multico/Toray Group/TTC/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, water resources, water supply, water treatment








C_2016372EN.01000101.xml










11.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8209 — GLM/Multico/Toray Group/TTC/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 372/01)
On 4 October 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 English 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 32016M8209. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8119 — DIF/Électricité de France/Thyssengas) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, gas industry, gas supply, merger control








C_2016372EN.01000302.xml










11.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8119 — DIF/Électricité de France/Thyssengas)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 372/06)
On 12 September 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 English 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 32016M8119. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Council Decision of 11 October 2016 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2016
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU)








C_2016378EN.01000101.xml










14.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/1





COUNCIL DECISION
of 11 October 2016
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2016
(2016/C 378/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,
Whereas:






—


the Union’s budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2)











—


on 30 June 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2016,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 was adopted on 11 October 2016.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu

Done at Luxembourg, 11 October 2016.


For the Council


The President

P. KAŽIMÍR




(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 48, 24.2.2016, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8170 — ChemChina/Adama) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fertiliser industry, merger control, pesticides industry








C_2016372EN.01000201.xml










11.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8170 — ChemChina/Adama)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 372/03)
On 3 October 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 32016M8170. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-601/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 October 2016 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/80/EC — Article 12(2) — National compensation schemes for victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation — National scheme not covering all violent intentional crimes committed on the national territory)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: help for victims, indemnification, infringement of EU law, national law, offence








C_2016462EN.01000201.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 October 2016 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-601/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12(2) - National compensation schemes for victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation - National scheme not covering all violent intentional crimes committed on the national territory))
(2016/C 462/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G. Palatiello and E. De Bonis, avvocati dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Moro, M. Chavrier and K. Pleśniak, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to guarantee the existence, in cross-border situations, of a compensation scheme for victims of all violent intentional crimes committed on its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
Case T-753/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Application for an EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs — Earlier EU and international figurative marks G — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016428EN.01001601.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/16





Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs)
(Case T-753/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Application for an EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs - Earlier EU and international figurative marks G - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 428/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2015 (Case R 1703/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci and Guess? IP Holder.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Guccio Gucci SpA to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Guess? IP Holder LP before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8186 — BC Partners/Keter and Jardin) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, merger control, plastics industry








C_2016372EN.01000202.xml










11.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8186 — BC Partners/Keter and Jardin)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 372/04)
On 3 October 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 32016M8186. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8153 — Wilmar/Bunge/Bunge Indo-China Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fats, food industry, merger control








C_2016372EN.01000102.xml










11.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8153 — Wilmar/Bunge/Bunge Indo-China Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 372/02)
On 3 October 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 32016M8153. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-461/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs — Earlier EU, national and international figurative marks G — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2016428EN.01001501.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/15





Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs)
(Case T-461/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs - Earlier EU, national and international figurative marks G - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 428/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2015 (Case R 2049/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Guccio Gucci and Guess? IP Holder.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Guccio Gucci SpA to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Guess? IP Holder LP before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8123 — Total/Lampiris) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, gas industry, gas supply, merger control








C_2016372EN.01000301.xml










11.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8123 — Total/Lampiris)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 372/05)
On 7 September 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 English 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 32016M8123. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-350/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO — CG (p) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark likely to be perceived as the letter ‘p’ — Earlier EU and national figurative marks P PROTECTIVE and P — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016428EN.01001402.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/14





Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO — CG (p)
(Case T-350/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark likely to be perceived as the letter ‘p’ - Earlier EU and national figurative marks P PROTECTIVE and P - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 428/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel, V. Ahmann and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova, M. Fischer and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber and T.- E. Vlah, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 2441/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft and Perry Ellis International Group Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Case T-167/14: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission (State Aid — Aid scheme to support production and innovation aid for written media — Decision not to raise objections — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Procedural rights of the interested parties — No serious difficulties — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, innovation, press








C_2016428EN.01001401.xml










21.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/14





Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission
(Case T-167/14) (1)

((State Aid - Aid scheme to support production and innovation aid for written media - Decision not to raise objections - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Procedural rights of the interested parties - No serious difficulties - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 428/14)
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented initially by: M. Honoré and C. Fornø, lawyers, and subsequently by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7870 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid SA.36366 (2013/N) notified by the Kingdom of Denmark Production in favour of production and innovation aid to written media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Søndagsavisen A/S to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs






(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016372EN.01000401.xml










11.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 October 2016
(2016/C 372/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1160 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,39 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4409 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90070 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6618 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0960 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0448 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2821 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5035 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4268 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4690 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4790 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6588 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5647 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5337 




KRW


South Korean won


1 240,60 




ZAR


South African rand


15,4550 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4850 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5050 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 482,89 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6353 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,027 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,6779 




THB


Thai baht


39,172 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5886 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,1388 




INR


Indian rupee


74,2325 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.