do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-72/16: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Prospector Offshore Drilling SA and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, business lease, corporation tax, national law, oil industry, parent company, profit, subsidiary, tax avoidance, taxable income








C_2017086EN.01002101.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/21





Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Prospector Offshore Drilling SA and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
(Case C-72/16) (1)

(2017/C 086/25)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Case T-851/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, international relations, judicial proceedings








C_2017053EN.01003102.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/31





Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission
(Case T-851/16)
(2017/C 053/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision C(2016) 6029 of the Commission of 19 September 2016 refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for conducting the proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine international relations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the protection of pending court proceedings initiated in cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16 and that access to the said documents would undermine the Commission’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice. It is also argued under this plea that the Commission failed to recognize that access to the requested documents is of overriding public interest and that they should for that reason be disclosed.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(3), first and second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the decision-making process and/or by failing to recognize the existence of an overriding public interest, particularly given that the decision-making process in question has been finalised.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, that the Commission misapplied Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not granting at least partial access to the requested documents which it withheld in their entirety.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Case T-217/15: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v EUIPO — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA — Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, education, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01002401.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/24





Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v EUIPO — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA)
(Case T-217/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA - Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 022/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2015 (Case R 2391/2013-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Residencial Palladium and Fiesta Hotels & Resorts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Case T-89/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court — Error in law — Error in fact — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017022EN.01002201.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/22





Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
(Case T-89/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court - Error in law - Error in fact - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
(2017/C 022/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and D. Gauci, agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, in the alternative, annulment of Decision 2013/661 and of Implementing Regulation No 1154/2013 in so far as those acts concern the applicant as from 20 January 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Export Development Bank of Iran to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Case T-846/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QF v Commission
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, professional sport, reimbursement of aid, sports body, tax relief








C_2017053EN.01003101.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/31





Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QF v Commission
(Case T-846/16)
(2017/C 053/38)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: QF (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruiz Ezquerra, R. Oncina Borrego, I. Sobrepera Millet and A. Hernández Pardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should;






—


declare that the Commission Decision of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), granted by Spain to certain football clubs, infringes Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU, since the possibility of consolidating accounts brought about by the authorisation of four clubs to participate in different sports under Law 10/1990, as well as the application of the reduced tax rate under the same corporate tax, also constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market and, therefore, should be declared to be such by the European Commission.










—


consequently, provide for the withdrawal/annulment of the measure and require the Kingdom of Spain to recover from the beneficiaries the aid that is incompatible with the internal market, and order it to pay the costs in that regard.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-845/16 QG v Commission.
Case T-458/15: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Automobile Club di Brescia v EUIPO — Rebel Media (e-miglia) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark e-miglia — Earlier EU word marks MILLE MIGLIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, education, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2017022EN.01002501.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/25





Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Automobile Club di Brescia v EUIPO — Rebel Media (e-miglia)
(Case T-458/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark e-miglia - Earlier EU word marks MILLE MIGLIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 022/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Automobile Club di Brescia (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rebel Media Ltd (Wilmslow, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Schotthöfer and F. Steiner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2015 (Case R 1990/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Automobile Club di Brescia and Rebel Media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the cross-claim;










3.


Orders Automobile Club di Brescia and Rebel Media Ltd to bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs of EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
Case T-845/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QG v Commission
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, professional sport, reimbursement of aid, sports body, tax relief








C_2017053EN.01003001.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/30





Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QG v Commission
(Case T-845/16)
(2017/C 053/37)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: QG (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruiz Ezquerra, R. Oncina Borrego, I. Sobrepera Millet y A. Hernández Pardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare that the Commission Decision of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA. 29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), granted by Spain to certain football clubs, infringes Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU, since the possibility of consolidating accounts brought about by the authorisation of four clubs to participate in different sports under Law 10/1990, as well as the application of the reduced tax rate under the same corporate tax, also constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market and, therefore, should be declared to be such by the European Commission.










—


consequently, provide for the withdrawal/annulment of the measure and require the Kingdom of Spain to recover from the beneficiaries the aid that is incompatible with the internal market, and order it to pay costs in that regard.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU.
The applicant, a basketball club, expresses its agreement with the contested measure, inasmuch as it considers the measure introduced by Law 10/1990, consisting in more favourable treatment in terms of corporation tax by applying a reduced rate of taxation to certain football clubs, to be State aid incompatible with the internal market.
Nonetheless the applicant considers that the Commission should have reached the same conclusion in respect of the tax privilege provided for in Law 10/1990 and which consists in permitting those same clubs to participate in different sports.
Only the clubs that were able to participate in professional competitions in different sports were permitted to consolidate the accounts in respect of football and basketball, the main sports in Europe, with direct effects on the calculation of the corporate tax base. By consolidating the accounts, the significant receipts from football are reduced by the losses from basketball and, thus, the corporate tax base is significantly reduced, together with the tax to be paid.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016445EN.01000101.xml










30.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 November 2016
(2016/C 445/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0576 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,48 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4391 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84815 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7668 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0752 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0765 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,045 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,48 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4299 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5172 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,6267 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4210 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4232 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2024 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4912 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5113 




KRW


South Korean won


1 241,38 




ZAR


South African rand


14,7958 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2972 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5368 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 354,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7232 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,664 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,0453 




THB


Thai baht


37,756 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6009 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8756 




INR


Indian rupee


72,6565 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-850/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QE v Eurojust
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, conflict of interest, damages, legal basis, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2017038EN.01004301.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/43





Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QE v Eurojust
(Case T-850/16)
(2017/C 038/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QE (Gouvy, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Cherif, lawyers)

Defendant: Eurojust

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order, as a preliminary matter, that the minutes of the meeting of 17 March 2016 be produced to the Court;










—


annul the contested decisions of 22 April 2016 and of 18 May 2016;










—


order Eurojust to pay damages for the harm suffered by QE, estimated, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the proceedings, at EUR 20 000 (twenty thousand euros), plus interest from 8 July 2016 when the complaint was lodged, as calculated on the basis of the rate applicable during the relevant period set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two points;










—


order Eurojust to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea: absence of a legal basis, infringement of the right to be heard and infringement of the principle of proportionality such as to vitiate the decision of 22 April 2016.










2.


Second plea: infringement of Article 23(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a manifest error of assessment and infringements of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials such as to vitiate the decision of 18 May 2016.










3.


Third plea: misuse of powers and conflict of interest such as to vitiate the two contested decisions.
Case T-838/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — BP v FRA
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, damages, data protection, fundamental rights, indemnification, interest, personal data








C_2017038EN.01003801.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/38





Action brought on 30 November 2016 — BP v FRA
(Case T-838/16)
(2017/C 038/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BP (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: E. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of mishandling and leakage of his/her personal data and other several irregularities occurred during the defendant’s proceedings for dealing with his/her requests to access documents under Regulation no 1049/2001 and his/her requests to access information under article 13 of Regulation 45/2001;










—


order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of violations of several rules intended to confer rights on individuals;










—


order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s irregular actions during the execution of the judgment in case T-658/13P;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant’s moral prejudice;










—


order the defendant to pay material damages;










—


order the defendant to reimburse the legal costs paid by the applicant for seeking legal advice in pre-litigation phase;










—


order the defendant to pay default interest on the amount eventually awarded;










—


order the defendant to pay the entire costs, even in the case the application is rejected.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breaches of rules intended to confer rights on individuals, including, amongst others, a breach of data protection rules envisaged in article 4(1) (b) of the Regulation no 1049/2001 read in conjunction with article 4(4) of the same regulation and with implementing rules of Regulation 1049/2001, a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a breach of data protection rules envisaged in various articles of the Regulation no 45/2001 and in implementing rules of Regulation 45/2001, and a breach of the duty of care.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of confidentiality which led to the leak of the applicant’s personal data to third parties and to the press, and alleging a misuse of powers and manifest and grave lack of due diligence and care during processing operations of applicant’s personal data