do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8137 — HNA Group/Servair) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016412EN.01002601.xml










9.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/26





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8137 — HNA Group/Servair)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 412/07)






1.


On 3 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which HNA Group Co., Ltd (‘HNA Group’, People’s Republic of China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of La Compagnie d’Exploitation des Services Auxiliaires Aériens SA (‘Servair’, France), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for HNA Group: core divisions of aviation, real estate, financial services, tourism and logistics. Essentially focused on China and the Asia-Pacific region, HNA Group has some activities in the European Economic Area (mainly airport handling services through Swissport and air passenger transport activities at a limited number of airports, as well as in-flight services (in-flight catering and retail on-board services) through the recently acquired Swiss-based company Gategroup Holding Ltd),
—   for Servair: provision of in-flight services (in-flight catering and retail on-board) and, to a more limited extent, ground handling 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.










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.8137 — HNA Group/Servair 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’).
Case C-565/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio Lerou (Greece) lodged on 9 Νοvember 2016 — Alessandro Saponaro and Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, Italy, dependant, enforcement of ruling, inheritance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, parental responsibility








C_2017022EN.01001301.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio Lerou (Greece) lodged on 9 Νοvember 2016 — Alessandro Saponaro and Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina
(Case C-565/16)
(2017/C 022/19)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Irinodikio Lerou (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alessandro Saponaro and Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina

Question referred

In the event that a petition for leave to renounce an inheritance is brought before a Greek court by the parents of a minor child who is habitually resident in Italy, is it the case that, if there is to be a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (1): (a) the unequivocal agreement to the prorogation by the parents is demonstrated by merely the lodging of the application before the Greek court, (b) the prosecutor before the first instance courts is one of the parties who must agree to the prorogation at the time of the lodging of the application, given that under Greek law he is legally a party to the relevant proceedings, (c) the prorogation of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child, given that the child and the applicants, who are the child’s parents, are habitually resident in Italy, while the place of residence of the person from whom property is inherited at the time of his death was Greece and the property inherited is in Greece.


(1)  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 2003 L 338, p. 1).
Case T-184/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Trivisio Prototyping v Commission (Funding — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Contracts concerning the projects ULTRA, CINeSPACE and IMPROVE — Partial reclassification of the action — Enforceable decision — Article 299 TFEU — Arbitration clause — Eligible costs — Recovery of sums paid)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, abuse of power, debt, enforcement of ruling, engineer, financial aid, subcontracting








C_2017006EN.01003401.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/34





Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Trivisio Prototyping v Commission
(Case T-184/15) (1)

((Funding - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts concerning the projects ULTRA, CINeSPACE and IMPROVE - Partial reclassification of the action - Enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Recovery of sums paid))
(2017/C 006/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Trivisio Prototyping GmbH (Trier, Germany) (represented initially by A. Bartosch and A. Böhlke, and subsequently by A. Böhlke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as agents, and R. van der Hout and S. Blazek, lawyers)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 633 final of 2 February 2015 concerning recovery of the sum of EUR 385 112,19 together with interest and, second, application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt claimed by the Commission against Trivisio Prototyping is non-existent.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Trivisio Prototyping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case C-448/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Novel foods and novel food ingredients — Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Article 1(2)(c) — Concept of foods and food ingredients with a new primary molecular structure)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, health control, human nutrition, market approval








C_2017006EN.01000301.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg
(Case C-448/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Novel foods and novel food ingredients - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(2)(c) - Concept of foods and food ingredients with a new primary molecular structure))
(2017/C 006/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Davitas GmbH

Defendant: Stadt Aschaffenburg

Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘new primary molecular structure’ relates to foods or food ingredients which were not used for human consumption in the territory of the European Union before 15 May 1997.


(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
Case C-149/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Scope — Concept of ‘seller’ — Intermediary — Exceptional circumstances)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer goods, consumer protection, guarantee, sale, trade intermediary








C_2017006EN.01001301.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/13





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL
(Case C-149/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Scope - Concept of ‘seller’ - Intermediary - Exceptional circumstances))
(2017/C 006/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sabrina Wathelet

Defendant: Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘seller’, for the purposes of Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, must be interpreted as covering also a trader acting as intermediary on behalf of a private individual who has not duly informed the consumer of the fact that the owner of the goods sold is a private individual, which it is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The above interpretation does not depend on whether the intermediary is remunerated for acting as intermediary


(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
Case C-212/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureş — Romania) — ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 4 — Effects provided for by legislation of a Member State on claims which were not pursued by means of insolvency proceedings — Forfeiture — Fiscal nature of the claim — No effect — Article 15 — Concept of ‘lawsuits pending’ — Enforcement proceedings — Excluded)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bankruptcy, claim, enforcement of ruling, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings








C_2017006EN.01001501.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/15





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureş — Romania) — ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)
(Case C-212/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 4 - Effects provided for by legislation of a Member State on claims which were not pursued by means of insolvency proceedings - Forfeiture - Fiscal nature of the claim - No effect - Article 15 - Concept of ‘lawsuits pending’ - Enforcement proceedings - Excluded))
(2017/C 006/18)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Mureş

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that provisions of domestic law of the Member State on the territory of which insolvency proceedings are opened which provide, in relation to a creditor who has not taken part in those proceedings, for the forfeiture of its right to pursue its claim or for the suspension of the enforcement of such a claim in another Member State come within its scope of application.










2.


The fiscal nature of the claim pursued by means of enforcement in a Member State other than that on the territory of which the insolvency proceedings are opened, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, has no bearing on the answer to be given to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015, p. 4.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8220 — Euro Garages/EFR) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor fuel, retail selling








C_2016412EN.01000101.xml










9.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8220 — Euro Garages/EFR)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 412/01)
On 4 November 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 32016M8220. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8249 — SHV/Deli Home and Garden) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016412EN.01002701.xml










9.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/27





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8249 — SHV/Deli Home and Garden)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 412/08)






1.


On 31 October 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 SHV Holdings (‘SHV’, the Netherlands), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking NV Deli Home and Garden (‘Deli’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for SHV: the trade in and distribution of LPG, exploration and production of oil and gas, self-service wholesale, heavy transportation, industrial services, animal nutrition and fish feed, and private equity activities,
—   for Deli: supplier of constructive and decorative home and garden building materials to DIY (‘do-it-yourself’) chains and garden centres throughout Europe. Deli also supplies to business to business (‘B2B’) resellers such as builders’ merchants, landscaping supply resellers and specialty stores.










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 the 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 number M.8249 — SHV/Deli Home and Garden, 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.
Case T-579/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Surface pattern — Application of a pattern on the packaging of a product)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017006EN.01003301.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/33





Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines)
(Case T-579/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Surface pattern - Application of a pattern on the packaging of a product))
(2017/C 006/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Vettelschoß, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially G. Schneider and D. Walicka, and subsequently D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2014 (Case R 1952/2013-1), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 May 2014 (Case R 1952/2013-1) in so far as it concerns the following goods: ‘artificial limbs, eyes and teeth’, ‘suture materials; suture materials for operations’ and ‘animal skins, hides’;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Birkenstock Sales GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by EUIPO, and EUIPO to bear half of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case T-290/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Smarter Travel Media v EUIPO (SMARTER TRAVEL) (EU trade mark — Application for the figurative EU trade mark SMARTER TRAVEL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tourism, trade-mark law








C_2017006EN.01003501.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/35





Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Smarter Travel Media v EUIPO (SMARTER TRAVEL)
(Case T-290/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the figurative EU trade mark SMARTER TRAVEL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))
(2017/C 006/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Smarter Travel Media LLC (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2015 (Case R 1986/2014-2), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign SMARTER TRAVEL as an EU trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Smarter Travel Media LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016412EN.01000401.xml










9.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 November 2016
(2016/C 412/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1038 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,66 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4418 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89088 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9185 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0778 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0753 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,57 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3283 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5073 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,4993 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4332 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4756 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5597 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5060 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5347 




KRW


South Korean won


1 253,75 




ZAR


South African rand


14,7318 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4919 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5100 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 456,30 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6562 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,684 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,4040 




THB


Thai baht


38,589 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5364 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,4890 




INR


Indian rupee


73,5085 






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