do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-401/15 to C-403/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15) v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement of persons — Worker’s rights — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Financial aid for the pursuit of higher education studies — Requirement of a parent-child relationship — Concept of ‘child’ — Child of a spouse or registered partner — Contribution towards the maintenance of that child)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child, dependant, education grant, equal treatment, free movement of persons, frontier worker, labour law, maintenance obligation, natural child








C_2017046EN.01000601.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15) v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
(Joined Cases C-401/15 to C-403/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Worker’s rights - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Financial aid for the pursuit of higher education studies - Requirement of a parent-child relationship - Concept of ‘child’ - Child of a spouse or registered partner - Contribution towards the maintenance of that child))
(2017/C 046/07)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15)

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a child of a frontier worker, who is able to benefit indirectly from the social advantages referred to in the latter provision, such as study finance granted by a Member State to the children of workers pursuing or who have pursued an activity in that Member State, means not only a child who has a child-parent relationship with that worker, but also a child of the spouse or registered partner of that worker, where that worker supports that child. The latter requirement is the result of a factual situation, which it is for the national authorities and, if appropriate, the national courts, to assess, and it is not necessary for them to determine the reasons for that contribution or make a precise estimation of its amount.


(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015, p. 27.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016467EN.01001501.xml










15.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 467/15





Euro exchange rates (1)

14 December 2016
(2016/C 467/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0644 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,39 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4359 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83963 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7553 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0747 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0223 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,023 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,89 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4402 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5153 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,7125 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4177 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3961 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2561 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4741 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5157 




KRW


South Korean won


1 241,10 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5508 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3499 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5405 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 143,75 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7303 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,918 




RUB


Russian rouble


65,1386 




THB


Thai baht


37,882 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,5242 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5666 




INR


Indian rupee


71,8245 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-885/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Mass Response Service v Commission
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, economic concentration, infringement of EU law, merger control, provision of services, single market, telecommunications industry, transmission network, wholesale trade








C_2017038EN.01005401.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/54





Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Mass Response Service v Commission
(Case T-885/16)
(2017/C 038/70)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mass Response Service GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the measures of the Commission through the merger control unit of the Directorate General for competition in the course of the implementation of the third requirement (‘non-MNO remedy’) of Decision M.7018, in particular its view expressed in the emails of 24 October 2016 and of 29 October 2016 that the non-MNO remedy is limited to pure service providers, excluding MVNOs (mobile virtual network operators) such as the applicant;










—


in the alternative, annul Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-884/16, Multiconnect v Commission.
Case T-886/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, packaging product, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01003001.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/30





Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)
(Case T-886/16)
(2017/C 063/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NAILS FACTORY’ — Application for registration No 13 528 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 202/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible;










—


annul the contested decision and uphold the Opposition Division’s decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-644/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Common organisation of agricultural markets — Fruit and vegetable sector — Article 103e — National financial assistance granted to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector — Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 — Article 97 — Commission decision concerning the reimbursement by the European Union of the national financial assistance granted by Hungary to producer organisations)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, agricultural production, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, control of State aid, financial aid, fruit, vegetable








C_2017046EN.01000801.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/8





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2016 — Hungary v Commission
(Case C-644/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Common organisation of agricultural markets - Fruit and vegetable sector - Article 103e - National financial assistance granted to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector - Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Article 97 - Commission decision concerning the reimbursement by the European Union of the national financial assistance granted by Hungary to producer organisations))
(2017/C 046/10)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E.E. Sebestyén, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A Lewis and B. Béres, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Hungary to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case T-884/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Multiconnect v Commission
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, economic concentration, infringement of EU law, merger control, provision of services, single market, telecommunications industry, transmission network, wholesale trade








C_2017038EN.01005301.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/53





Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Multiconnect v Commission
(Case T-884/16)
(2017/C 038/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Multiconnect GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the measures of the Commission through the merger control unit of the Directorate General for competition in the course of the implementation of the third requirement (‘non-MNO remedy’) of Decision M.7018, in particular its view expressed in the emails of 11 October 2016 and of 29 October 2016 that the non-MNO remedy is limited to pure service providers, excluding MVNOs (mobile virtual network operators) such as the applicant;










—


in the alternative, annul Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea: infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to [their] implementation
The applicant claims that the defendant erred in law in its interpretation and application of Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018 together with commitments, inasmuch as it limited, in the case, the so-called ‘non-MNO remedy’ to which Telefónica had committed itself to grant third parties access to 4G services in the wholesale mobile communications market, to third parties with a service provider business model and did not allow Telefónica to grant third parties access to 4G services within the framework of an MVNO business model in accordance with the ‘non-MNO remedy’.










2.


Second plea, put forward in the alternative: infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to [their] implementation, as well as manifest errors of assessment and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as Decision C(2014) 4443 final wrongly concluded that the commitments made by Telefónica could remove any competition concerns.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1015 of 17 June 2016 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 1 naphthylacetamide, 1-naphthylacetic acid, chloridazon, fluazifop-P, fuberidazole, mepiquat and tralkoxydim in or on certain products (OJ L 172, 29.6.2016)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, crop production, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue








L_2016340EN.01007201.xml










15.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 340/72







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1015 of 17 June 2016 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 1 naphthylacetamide, 1-naphthylacetic acid, chloridazon, fluazifop-P, fuberidazole, mepiquat and tralkoxydim in or on certain products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 172 of 29 June 2016
)


On page 21, in point (2) of the Annex:
for:







‘(2)


In Annex III in Part B, the columns for 1-naphthylacetamide, 1-naphthylacetic acid, chloridazon, fluazifop-P, fuberidazole, mepiquat and tralkoxydim are deleted.’





read:







‘(2)


In Annex III in Part A, the columns for 1-naphthylacetamide, 1-naphthylacetic acid, chloridazon, fluazifop-P, fuberidazole, mepiquat and tralkoxydim are deleted.’
Case C-700/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — LEK farmacevtska družba d.d. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combined Nomenclature — Classification of goods — Food supplements falling under heading 2106 — Active ingredient as the essential component — Possible classification in Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature — Goods presented and marketed as medicinal products)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, specification of tariff heading








C_2017046EN.01000901.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/9





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — LEK farmacevtska družba d.d. v Republika Slovenija
(Case C-700/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Food supplements falling under heading 2106 - Active ingredient as the essential component - Possible classification in Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature - Goods presented and marketed as medicinal products))
(2017/C 046/12)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that goods which fall within the definition of ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of 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, as amended by Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011, are not automatically required to be classified under that heading.










2.


The Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff set out in Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which have beneficial effects on health and in which the essential component is an active ingredient that is found in food supplements classified under tariff heading 2106 of the CN, although they are presented by their manufacturer as medicinal products and are marketed and sold as such, fall under that heading.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-330/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Keil v EUIPO — NaturaFit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktion (BasenCitrate) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark BasenCitrate — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01003001.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/30





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Keil v EUIPO — NaturaFit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktion (BasenCitrate)
(Case T-330/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BasenCitrate - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 038/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rudolf Keil (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, D. Walicka and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: NaturaFit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions GmbH (Röttenbach, Germany) (represented by N. Reber, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2015 (Case R 1541/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between NaturaFit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions GmbH and Mr Keil.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Rudolf Keil to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Case T-762/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 – Philips and Philips France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Smart card chips — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Exchange of commercially sensitive information — Infringement by object — Single and continuous infringement — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Proof — 2006 Leniency Notice — Settlement Notice — Limitation period — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, exchange of information, restriction on competition, right to justice, sanction (EU), trade information








C_2017038EN.01002602.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/26





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 – Philips and Philips France v Commission
(Case T-762/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Smart card chips - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Exchange of commercially sensitive information - Infringement by object - Single and continuous infringement - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Proof - 2006 Leniency Notice - Settlement Notice - Limitation period - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales))
(2017/C 038/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Koninklijke Philips NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands), Philips France, (Suresnes, France) (represented by: J. de Pree, S. Molin, A. ter Haar and T.M. Snoep, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes, J. Norris-Usher and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips) or, in the alternative, for the cancellation of or a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Case T-391/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Cantina Tollo (ALDIANO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ALDIANO — Earlier EU word mark ALDI — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2016-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2017038EN.01003101.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/31





Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Cantina Tollo (ALDIANO)
(Case T-391/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALDIANO - Earlier EU word mark ALDI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2017/C 038/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Cantina Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2015 (Case R 1612/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi and Cantina Tollo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.