do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-6/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, research and development








C_2017063EN.01002001.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/20





Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-6/17 P)
(2017/C 063/28)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.
The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:






i.




First
, with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.










ii.




Second
, on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.




Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:






I.


In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:






1)


First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons.










2)


Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.














II.


With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:






3)


Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.










4)


Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 January 2017 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2017002EN.01000201.xml










5.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/2





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 January 2017
Euro exchange rates (2)

4 January 2017
(2017/C 2/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0437 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4343 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84945 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5238 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0707 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9905 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3778 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5086 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,7387 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4373 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3894 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,0948 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5024 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5047 




KRW


South Korean won


1 251,90 




ZAR


South African rand


14,2409 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2382 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5738 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


13 969,26 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6940 




PHP


Philippine peso


51,811 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,4078 




THB


Thai baht


37,375 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3784 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,0709 




INR


Indian rupee


71,0390 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2017002EN.01000501.xml










5.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 2/06)






1.


On 19 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Hellas Acquisition Luxco SÀRL (‘Centerbridge’, Luxembourg) controlled by Centerbridge Partners, L.P. (‘Centerbridge Partners’, USA) and Alpha Bank A.E. (‘Alpha Bank’, Greece) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Kaican Services Limited (‘Kaican’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Centerbridge: is managed by affiliates of Centerbridge Partners which is an investment management firm with offices in New York and London focused on private equity and distressed investment opportunities.
—   Alpha Bank: provision of financial products and services, retail, corporate, investment and private banking services, asset management, the distribution of insurance products, brokerage and real estate management in Greece Cyprus, Romania, Serbia, Albania and the UK.
—   Kaican: a coordinator of debt management services, including collection services for both mortgage debt and consumer non-performing loans, management information system services, and recoveries. Kaican’s primary activities relate to the coordination of Greek management service providers on behalf of two Irish securitisation vehicles that hold Greek-based non-performing loan portfolios.










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 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 M.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican) 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-7/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01003802.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/38





Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)
(Case T-7/17)
(2017/C 063/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: John Mills Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerome Alexander Consulting Corp. (Surfside, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MINERAL MAGIC’ — EU trade mark application No 12 151 379

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2087/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-9/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disability insurance, disabled person, medical report, occupational disease








C_2017070EN.01002401.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/24





Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council
(Case T-9/17)
(2017/C 070/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RI (Paris, France) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Council’s appointing authority of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





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 a manifest error of assessment and misinterpretation of the concept of an occupational disease by the Council’s Invalidity Committee and appointing authority. The applicant contests, in particular, the committee’s findings that:






—


Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cannot be recognised as an occupational disease;










—


it is not the applicant’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, but rather the algoneurodystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome) which has developed following a surgical operation on her left hand, that is the source of her inability to return to work.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that the Invalidity Committee did not provide an explanation to the requisite legal standard as regards the reasons that led it to depart from the earlier medical reports clearly showing the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, described as ‘Carpal Tunnel Syndrome complicated by algoneurodystrophy’.
Case T-8/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, film production, gaming, registered trade mark, sporting event, sports equipment, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01003901.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/39





Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)
(Case T-8/17)
(2017/C 063/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ — Application for registration No 6 036 503

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2016 in Case R 1962/2015-1

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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/8 of 5 January 2017 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, intervention buying, invitation to tender, minimum price, purchase price, skimmed milk powder, tendering








L_2017003EN.01003101.xml










6.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 3/31








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/8
of 5 January 2017
         
on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.












(2)


In the light of the tenders received for the second partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should not be fixed.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the second partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 3 January 2017, a minimum selling price has not been fixed.


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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 January 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General


Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).
Case C-7/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, research and development








C_2017063EN.01002101.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/21





Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-7/17 P)
(2017/C 063/29)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment of 27 April 2016 of the General Court in Case T-155/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.
The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:






i.




First
, with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.










ii.




Second
, on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.




Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:






I.


In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:






1)


First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons.










2)


Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.














II.


With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:






3)


Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.










4)


Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8291 — PSA/Aramis) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, sale








C_2017002EN.01000101.xml










5.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8291 — PSA/Aramis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 2/01)
On 20 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 French 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 32016M8291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coal mining, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017002EN.01000601.xml










5.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 2/07)






1.


On 21 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Riverstone Investment Group LLC (‘Riverstone’, United States) and AMCI worldwide holdings (‘AMCI’, United States) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of Fitzroy QLD Resources Limited (‘Fitzroy’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Riverstone is a private equity firm focused on investments in the energy and power sectors.










—


AMCI is a privately held natural resources company, with operations across the value chain of energy and metal commodities with investments in coals and minerals, metals, and shipping.










—


Fitzroy is a producer of coking coal for seaborne export worldwide. All of Fitzroy’s operations and assets are in Australia. Fitzroy is currently 100 % owned by AMCI.














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 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 M.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy, 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.