do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-639/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Foodcare sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2016 in Case T-456/15: Foodcare sp. z o.o. v EUIPO
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017202EN.01000802.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/8





Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Foodcare sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2016 in Case T-456/15: Foodcare sp. z o.o. v EUIPO
(Case C-639/16 P)
(2017/C 202/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Żabińska, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Dariusz Michalczewski
By order of 11 May 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Corrigendum to Call for proposals — ‘Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP)’ for 2017 (OJ C 401, 29.10.2016)
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, dissemination of information, invitation to tender, public awareness campaign








C_2016459EN.01003101.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/31





Corrigendum to Call for proposals — ‘Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP)’ for 2017
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 401 of 29 October 2016
)
(2016/C 459/13)
On page 18, Section 9, ‘Award Criteria’, first paragraph:

for:


‘The different communication tools and activities included in the information measure should be interconnected, clear in their conceptual approach and in the results to be achieved. They should also have a significant impact that can be measured through relevant indicators referred to in Section 11.4.’,


read:


‘The different communication tools and activities included in the information measure should be interconnected, clear in their conceptual approach and in the results to be achieved.’;

on page 20, point 11.1(e), fourth paragraph:

for:


‘In the event of procurement exceeding EUR 70 000’,


read:


‘In the event of procurement exceeding EUR 60 000’.
Special Report No 28/2016 — ‘Dealing with serious cross-border threats to health in the EU: important steps taken but more needs to be done’
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU programme, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, World Health Organisation, disease prevention, epidemic, epidemiology, health care, health control, health risk, infectious disease








C_2016459EN.01001501.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/15





Special Report No 28/2016
‘Dealing with serious cross-border threats to health in the EU: important steps taken but more needs to be done’
(2016/C 459/09)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 28/2016 ‘Dealing with serious cross-border threats to health in the EU: important steps taken but more needs to be done’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8289 — Engie/Omnes Capital/Predica/MAIA) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy production, merger control








C_2016459EN.01000202.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8289 — Engie/Omnes Capital/Predica/MAIA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 459/04)
On 5 December 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 32016M8289. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016459EN.01000901.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 December 2016
(2016/C 459/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0762 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4390 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84995 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7228 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0853 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0145 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,038 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,29 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4540 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5020 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,6676 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4406 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4222 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3475 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4973 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5272 




KRW


South Korean won


1 250,03 




ZAR


South African rand


14,7162 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4041 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5355 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 298,93 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7590 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,465 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,1900 




THB


Thai baht


38,334 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6599 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8915 




INR


Indian rupee


72,5055 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-878/16: Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Karelia v EUIPO (KARELIA)
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fuel, industrial fat, medical device, registered trade mark, rubber industry, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01005201.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/52





Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Karelia v EUIPO (KARELIA)
(Case T-878/16)
(2017/C 038/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ino Karelia (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: M. Karpathakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KARELIA’ — Application for registration No 964 502

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 1562/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-877/16: Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Verschuur v Commission
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, access to EU information, basis of tax assessment, control of State aid, intellectual property, provision of documents, restriction on competition, tax relief








C_2017053EN.01003401.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/34





Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Verschuur v Commission
(Case T-877/16)
(2017/C 053/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Steven Verschuur (Baarn, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 3 October 2016, C(2016) 6455 final, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application (1) for access to documents under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (2) (GESTDEM 2015/3732); and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 related to the protection of the purpose of investigations, thereby also committing a manifest error of fact.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 related to the protection of the Commission’s decision making process, thereby also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, related to the protection of the commercial interests of a legal person, and Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, related to the institution’s obligation to grant partial access when only parts of a document are covered by one or more exceptions, thereby also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.






(1)  Application for access to some documents related to the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015 in case SA.38374, State aid implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks.

(2)  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 L 145, 2001, p. 43).
Case C-637/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2016 — Florian Hanig v Air France SA
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, overseas countries and territories, traveller








C_2017086EN.01000801.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2016 — Florian Hanig v Air France SA
(Case C-637/16)
(2017/C 086/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Florian Hanig

Defendant: Air France SA

Question referred

Must heading (b) of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of 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, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘intra-Community’ also extends to those territories that are so-called ‘overseas countries and territories’ under Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for which only the special arrangements for association set out in Part Four of the TFEU apply?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case T-872/16: Action brought on 9 December 2016 — repowermap v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, transmission network








C_2017030EN.01005802.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/58





Action brought on 9 December 2016 — repowermap v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)
(Case T-872/16)
(2017/C 030/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union word mark ‘REPOWER’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 020 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Second decision (after revocation) of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision by declaring the mark at issue invalid in respect of all the goods and services not cancelled by the contested decision, with the exception of packaging and storage of goods (Class 39), arrangement of travel (Class 39) and fire extinguishers (Class 9);










—


order EUIPO and Repower AG to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation with Article 296 TFEU.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8281 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Motors Corporation/KTB-Trading) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2016459EN.01000201.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8281 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Motors Corporation/KTB-Trading)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 459/03)
On 2 December 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 32016M8281. 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.8046 — TUI/Transat France) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, travel agency








C_2016459EN.01000101.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8046 — TUI/Transat France)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 459/01)
On 20 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 32016M8046. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-636/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 of Pamplona lodged on 9 December 2016 — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, removal, third country








C_2017046EN.01001801.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 of Pamplona lodged on 9 December 2016 — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra
(Case C-636/16)
(2017/C 046/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wilber López Pastuzano

Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra

Question referred

Must Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November [2003] concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that issue in the main proceedings, and the case-law interpreting it, which does not provide for the application of the requirements of protection against the expulsion of a long-term resident foreign national to all administrative expulsion decisions regardless of the legal nature or type thereof, but instead restricts the application of those requirements to a specific type of expulsion?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.
Case T-874/16: Action brought on 9 December 2016 — RA v Court of Auditors
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, promotion, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017046EN.01002201.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/22





Action brought on 9 December 2016 — RA v Court of Auditors
(Case T-874/16)
(2017/C 046/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of 4 March 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11;










—


order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, by which the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the promotion system in force at the Court of Auditors of the European Union, implemented by decision 53-2014 on promotions, in that it affects the appointing authority’s ability to identify in a methodical way the disparities in the method of appraising officials as applied by the various reporting officers of the institution according to their own subjective viewpoint.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 4 May 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as the appointing authority did not carry out a comparative examination of the applicant’s merits on a basis of equality and objectivity, using comparable sources of information.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons in the response dismissing the complaint shows that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, France, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2016459EN.01001601.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/16





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2016/C 459/10)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


14.11.2016




Duration


14.11-31.12.2016




Member State


France




Stock or Group of stocks


SBR/678-




Species


Red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo)




Zone


Union and international waters of VI, VII and VIII




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


38/DSS






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8136 — BASF/Chemetall) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2016459EN.01000102.xml










9.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8136 — BASF/Chemetall)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 459/02)
On 28 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 32016M8136. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.