do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2017/42 of 19 December 2016 appointing a member, proposed by the Italian Republic, of the European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, Italy, appointment of members








L_2017005EN.01002201.xml










10.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 5/22








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2017/42
of 19 December 2016
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Italian Republic, of the European Economic and Social Committee


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020.












(2)


A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Carmelo CEDRONE,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Ester VITALE, Segretaria Generale aggiunta UIL Caltanissetta e Enna, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2020.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 19 December 2016.


For the Council


The President

L. SÓLYMOS
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 of 18 September 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 53).

(2)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 of 1 October 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 260, 7.10.2015, p. 23).
Council Decision (EU) 2017/3 of 19 December 2016 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Denmark, North Sea, Norway, Sweden, agreement (EU), fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2017002EN.01000101.xml










5.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 2/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/3
of 19 December 2016
         
on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,


Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Council Decision 2014/505/EU (2) the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (‘the Agreement’) was signed on 15 January 2015, subject to its conclusion at a later date.












(2)


The Agreement should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (3).


Article 2
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 7 of the Agreement (4).


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 19 December 2016.


For the Council


The President

L. SÓLYMOS
            





(1)  Consent of 12 December 2016 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)  Council Decision 2014/505/EU of 23 July 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (OJ L 224, 30.7.2014, p. 1).

(3)  The Agreement has been published in OJ L 224, 30.7.2014, p. 3, together with the decision on signature and provisional application.

(4)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.
Case T-893/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Apple (MI PAD)
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2017046EN.01002601.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/26





Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Apple (MI PAD)
(Case T-893/16)
(2017/C 046/29)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Xiaomi, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MI PAD’ — Application for registration No 12 780 987

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 363/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-654/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, offer price, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, takeover bid, transparency in decision-making








C_2017121EN.01000902.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Case C-654/16)
(2017/C 121/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found between, on the one hand, the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and, on the other, one or more sellers, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
Case C-656/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Finmeccanica SpA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, offer price, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, takeover bid, transparency in decision-making








C_2017121EN.01001002.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Finmeccanica SpA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Case C-656/16)
(2017/C 121/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finmeccanica SpA

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and the proper application of the general principles of European law relating to legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions authorise Consob to increase the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where the condition that ‘there has been collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers’ is fulfilled, without identifying the specific actions which constitute such a situation, and thus without determining clearly the conditions and criteria under which Consob is authorised to adjust upwards the price of the takeover bid?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, territorial dispute, trade restriction




L_2016345EN.01006501.xml










20.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 345/65








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/2315
of 19 December 2016
         
amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 July 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1).












(2)


On 19 March 2015, the European Council agreed that the necessary measures would be taken to clearly link the duration of the restrictive measures to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements, bearing in mind that the complete implementation was foreseen for 31 December 2015.












(3)


On 1 July 2016, the Council renewed Decision 2014/512/CFSP until 31 January 2017 in order to enable it to further assess the implementation of the Minsk agreements.












(4)


Having assessed the implementation of the Minsk agreements, Decision 2014/512/CFSP should be renewed for a further 6 months in order to enable the Council to further assess their implementation.












(5)


Decision 2014/512/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP is replaced by the following:


‘1.   This Decision shall apply until 31 July 2017.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 19 December 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. LAJČÁK
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13).
Case C-655/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, offer price, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, takeover bid, transparency in decision-making








C_2017121EN.01001001.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Case C-655/16)
(2017/C 121/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles of European law relating to legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions authorise Consob to increase the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where the condition that ‘there has been collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers’ is fulfilled, without identifying the specific actions which constitute such a situation, and thus without determining clearly the conditions and criteria under which Consob is authorised to adjust upwards the price of the takeover bid?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
Case C-658/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Elliot International Lp and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, offer price, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, takeover bid, transparency in decision-making








C_2017121EN.01001201.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Elliot International Lp and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
(Case C-658/16)
(2017/C 121/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Elliot International Lp, The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Elliot Associates L.P.

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found to have taken place between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it, on the one hand, and one or more sellers, on the other hand, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
Case C-651/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 December 2016 — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, maternity benefit, servant (EU), social security legislation








C_2017086EN.01001002.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 December 2016 — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra
(Case C-651/16)
(2017/C 086/13)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DW

Defendant: Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra, Rīga.

Question referred

Must Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 45(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings that, for the purposes of determining the amount of a maternity benefit, does not exclude from the 12-month period which is to be used in determining the average contribution basis the months in which the person worked in an EU institution and was covered by the joint insurance scheme of the European Communities, but that, on the grounds that, during that period, the person was not insured in Latvia, equates her income with the average contribution basis in the State, which may substantially reduce the amount of the maternity benefit granted in comparison with the possible amount of the benefit that the person could have received if, during the period under consideration for the purposes of the calculation, she had not worked for an EU institution but had been employed in Latvia?
Case C-649/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others
Date: 2016-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bankruptcy, claim, damages, financial solvency, shareholding








C_2017104EN.01002701.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others
(Case C-649/16)
(2017/C 104/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, Europa SC ZV II a.s., Europa SC LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., Europa SC BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o.

Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., City of Banská Bystrica

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by the holders of shares in an insolvent company — as is the case of the first and second applicants — and by project companies in a business relationship with the insolvent company — as is the case of the third to seventh applicants — which is founded on a claim in tort for damages against members of a creditors’ committee in respect of voting impropriety regarding a restructuring plan in connection with insolvency proceedings concerns insolvency within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and is for that reason excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.