do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objectionsText with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Estonia, State aid, control of State aid








C_2016406EN.01002001.xml










4.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/20





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
(2016/C 406/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


28.09.2016




Aid number


SA.45613 (2016/N)




Member State


Estonia




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Sigade Aafrika katku likvideerimiskulude katmine ja kahjude hüvitamine suurettevõtjatele 2




Legal basis








1.


Loomatauditõrje seadus (RT I, 16.06.2016, 14 https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/123032015264?leiaKehtiv)










2.


Nõuded eksperdi arvamusele ja looma, sealhulgas aretuslooma väärtuse arvutamise kord (RT I, 15.09.2015, 21 https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/128062014122?leiaKehtiv)










3.


Sigade klassikalise katku ja sigade aafrika katku tõrje eeskiri (RT I, 29.08.2015, 18 https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/114042015005?leiaKehtiv)








Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Aid for the costs of prevention, control and eradication of animal diseases and plant pests and aid to make good the damage caused by animal diseases and plant pests




Form of aid


Direct grant, Subsidized services




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 20 (in millions)




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


until 31.12.2020




Economic sectors


Raising of swine/pigs




Name and address of the granting authority







Maaeluministeerium; Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet




Lai tn 39/Lai tn 41, 15056 Tallinn, Eesti; Väike-Paala 3, 11415 Tallinn, Eesti








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.
Case T-776/16: Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell.)
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building insulation, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01004502.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/45






Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell.)
(Case T-776/16)
(2017/C 014/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Germany) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘iCell.’ — Application No 12 877 676

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 in Case R 2496/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and that EU trade mark application No 12877676 is refused;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-559/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Birgit Bossen and Others v Brussels Airlines
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic control, air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2017053EN.01002003.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Birgit Bossen and Others v Brussels Airlines
(Case C-559/16)
(2017/C 053/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann

Defendant: Brussels Airlines

Question referred

Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates only to the direct distance calculated between the point of departure and the last destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91(OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ L 338, 23.12.2003)
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: civil procedure, divorce, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, parental responsibility, private international law








L_2016297EN.01002502.xml










4.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 297/25







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 338 of 23 December 2003
)


On page 13, Article 42(1), second subparagraph:
for:

               ‘… mentioned in Article 11 (b)(8)’,
read:

               ‘… mentioned in Article 11(8)’.
Case C-557/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Astellas Pharma GmbH
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: generic drug, market approval, national law, pharmaceutical legislation, right to justice








C_2017022EN.01001101.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Astellas Pharma GmbH
(Case C-557/16)
(2017/C 022/16)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Astellas Pharma GmbH

Other parties: Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 28(5) and 29(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use to be as interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the concerned Member State in the decentralised procedure for marketing authorisations for generic medicinal products in accordance with Article 28(3) of that directive are not themselves competent when issuing a national marketing authorisation to determine the time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product begins to run?










2.


If the answer to the first question is that, when issuing a national marketing authorisation, the competent authorities of a Member State are not competent to determine the time from which the period of data exclusivity of the reference medicinal product starts to run:






—


is the court of that Member State when dealing with an appeal by the holder of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product required to determine the time from which the period of data exclusivity starts to run, or is it subject to the same limit as the national authorities of that Member State?










—


in those circumstances, how is the national court to give effect to the right of the holder of the marketing authorisation of the reference medicinal product under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of Directive 2001/83 to effective legal protection with regard to data exclusivity?










—


does the claim for effective legal protection require the national court to examine whether the original marketing authorisation granted in another Member State was issued in accordance with the rules laid down by Directive 2001/83?










(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 November 2016 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2016405EN.01000101.xml










4.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 405/1





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 November 2016
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 November 2016
(2016/C 405/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1025 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4389 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90173 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8800 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0823 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0213 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,024 




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,73 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3085 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5055 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4195 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4341 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4730 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5504 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5342 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5308 




KRW


South Korean won


1 258,44 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8790 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4631 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5080 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 385,42 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6006 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,228 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,3698 




THB


Thai baht


38,610 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5239 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8180 




INR


Indian rupee


73,5425 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1956 of 4 November 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Taric, specification of tariff heading, tariff preference, textile product








L_2016301EN.01000501.xml










9.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 301/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1956
of 4 November 2016
         
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(e) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 established a nomenclature of goods (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Combined Nomenclature’), which is set out in Annex I to that Regulation.












(2)


Heading 9404 includes articles of bedding and similar furnishing (for example, mattresses, quilts, eiderdowns, cushions, pouffes and pillows) fitted with springs or stuffed or internally fitted with any material or of cellular rubber or plastics, whether or not covered.












(3)


Divergent views exist on the interpretation of the wording of heading 9404, as regards the expression ‘stuffed or internally fitted with any material’.












(4)


In the interest of legal certainty, it is thus necessary to insert a new additional note in Chapter 94 of the Combined Nomenclature to ensure a uniform interpretation of this CN code throughout the Union.












(5)


Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(6)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
In Chapter 94 of Part Two of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, the following Additional note 1 is inserted:







‘1.


For the purposes of heading 9404, the expression “stuffed or internally fitted with any material” covers material of any thickness.’







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, 4 November 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Stephen QUEST
            

Director-General for Taxation and Customs Union






(1)  
            OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016405EN.01000301.xml










4.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 405/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

3 November 2016
(2016/C 405/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1064 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4406 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88658 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9068 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0787 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0575 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,88 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3186 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4988 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4431 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4434 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4814 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5810 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5134 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5332 




KRW


South Korean won


1 266,04 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8945 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4832 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5140 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 458,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6331 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,556 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,5482 




THB


Thai baht


38,691 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5720 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3426 




INR


Indian rupee


73,8460 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-760/16: Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Bicycle baskets)
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, iron and steel product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2017006EN.01004601.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/46





Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Bicycle baskets)
(Case T-760/16)
(2017/C 006/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Basil BV (Silvolde, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Weber and J. von der Thüsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artex SpA (Zeno di Cassola, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 142 245-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2016 in Case R 535/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and, if applicable, the other parties involved to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002, infringement of principles relating to the burden of proof and infringement of rules of logic in the evaluation of evidence;










—


Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case T-777/16: Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building insulation, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01004601.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/46






Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)
(Case T-777/16)
(2017/C 014/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Germany) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden’ — Application No 12 882 023

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 181/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision by upholding the opposition in its entirety and refusing EU trade mark application No 12882023;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Corrigendum to Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 174, 27.6.2001)
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, information system, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








L_2016297EN.01002501.xml










4.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 297/25







Corrigendum to Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 174 of 27 June 2001
)


On page 30, Article 15, paragraphs 4 and 5 are renumbered as paragraphs 3 and 4 respectively.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016405EN.01000201.xml










4.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 405/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

2 November 2016
(2016/C 405/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1095 




JPY


Japanese yen


114,62 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4395 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90063 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8910 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0787 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0735 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,022 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,06 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3255 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5028 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4580 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4479 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4840 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6040 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5232 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5360 




KRW


South Korean won


1 268,46 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8423 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4983 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5130 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 480,74 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6366 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,639 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,3983 




THB


Thai baht


38,783 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5967 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4950 




INR


Indian rupee


73,9710 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-560/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Michael Dědouch and Others v Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG
Date: 2016-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electricity supply, enforcement of ruling, gas supply, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, public limited company, securities, shareholder








C_2017022EN.01001201.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Michael Dědouch and Others v Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG
(Case C-560/16)
(2017/C 022/17)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Michael Dědouch, MUDr. Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

Defendants: Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) be interpreted as also covering proceedings for the review of the reasonableness of the consideration which a majority shareholder is required to provide, as equivalent value for participating securities, to the previous owners of participating securities which were transferred to it as a result of a decision at a general meeting of a public limited company on the compulsory transfer of the other participating securities to that majority shareholder (otherwise known as a ‘squeeze out’), where the resolution adopted at the general meeting of the public limited company determines the amount of the reasonable consideration and where there is a court decision granting entitlement to a different amount of consideration which is binding on the majority shareholder and on the company as regards the basis of the right granted, as well as vis-à-vis the other owners of the participating securities?










2.


If the answer to the preceding question is [in the] negative, must Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as also covering proceedings for review of the reasonableness of the consideration described in the previous question?










3.


If the answer to both the preceding questions is in the negative, must Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as also covering proceedings for review of the reasonableness of the consideration described in the first question?






(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).