do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-128/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Fisheries — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 — Validity — Fishing opportunities — Precautionary approach — Principle of relative stability of fishing activities — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment — Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier)
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: authorised catch, catch area, catch by species, conservation of fish stocks, equal treatment, fishing controls, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of proportionality, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2017063EN.01000201.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
(Case C-128/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Fisheries - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 - Validity - Fishing opportunities - Precautionary approach - Principle of relative stability of fishing activities - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier))
(2017/C 063/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, A. de Gregorio Merino and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, I. Galindo Martín and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;










3.


Order the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Case T-12/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, environmental impact, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, herbicide, market approval, marketing standard, plant health control








C_2017063EN.01004001.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/40





Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission
(Case T-12/17)
(2017/C 063/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision Ares (2016) 6306335 of 8 November 2016, received by the applicant on 11 November 2016;










—


order the Commission to adopt a new decision on the merits of the applicant’s request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 on the extension of authorisation for glyphosate;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation and with the Aarhus Convention (2)

The applicant submits, in connection with the first plea, that the extension of the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate is an administrative act that is amenable to review in the procedure under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3)

The applicant claims that the Commission was not empowered to extend the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate under the provision referred to above, as that rule was not applicable at all in the present case.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(2)  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8252 — TPG Capital/Intel Security) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, software








C_2017008EN.01000201.xml










11.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/2





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8252 — TPG Capital/Intel Security)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 8/02)






1.


On 23 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 undertaking TPG Capital controlled by TPG (United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Intel Security (United States) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


TPG Capital is part of TPG, a private investment firm that manages a family of funds that invest in a variety of companies through acquisitions and corporate restructurings,










—


Intel Security designs and develops security solutions for servers, computers, smartphones, and other devices.














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 the 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 number M.8252 — TPG Capital/Intel Security, 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 C-10/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2017 by Polo Club against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2016 in Case T-67/15: Polo Club v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01000201.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/2





Appeal brought on 11 January 2017 by Polo Club against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2016 in Case T-67/15: Polo Club v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-10/17 P)
(2017/C 231/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Polo Club (represented by: D. Masson, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Lifestyle Equities CV
By order of 1 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-289/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 7 — Condition of double criminality — Article 9 — Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality — National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority)
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal law, criminal procedure, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, offence








C_2017063EN.01000202.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza
(Case C-289/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 7 - Condition of double criminality - Article 9 - Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality - National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority))
(2017/C 063/03)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Party in the main proceedings

Joszef Grundza

Intervening party: Krajská prokuratúra Prešov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3) and Article 9(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of double criminality must be considered to be met, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the factual elements underlying the offence, as reflected in the judgment handed down by the competent authority of the issuing State, would also, per se, be subject to a criminal sanction in the territory of the executing State if they were present in that State.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Colombia on the short-stay visa waiver
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Colombia, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, foreign national








L_2017006EN.01000101.xml










11.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 6/1







Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Colombia on the short-stay visa waiver

The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Colombia on the short-stay visa waiver will enter into force on 1 December 2016, the procedure provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement having been completed on 19 October 2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017008EN.01000101.xml










11.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 8/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 January 2017
(2017/C 8/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0567 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,84 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4339 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86940 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5595 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0737 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0750 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3721 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4958 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9912 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4400 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3992 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1947 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5165 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5193 




KRW


South Korean won


1 269,08 




ZAR


South African rand


14,4773 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3176 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5645 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 043,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7282 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,384 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,5057 




THB


Thai baht


37,640 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3743 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,6397 




INR


Indian rupee


72,0855 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-491/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Rainer Typke v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 3 — Notion of document — Article 2(3) — Documents held by an institution — Characterisation of information contained in a database — Obligation to create a document which does not already exist — None — Existing documents capable of being extracted from a database)
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, data protection, dissemination of EU information, document, personal data








C_2017063EN.01000401.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/4





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Rainer Typke v European Commission
(Case C-491/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 3 - Notion of document - Article 2(3) - Documents held by an institution - Characterisation of information contained in a database - Obligation to create a document which does not already exist - None - Existing documents capable of being extracted from a database))
(2017/C 063/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Rainer Typke (represented by: C. Cortese, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Rainer Typke to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case T-17/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: child care, equal treatment, proof








C_2017070EN.01002402.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/24





Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament
(Case T-17/17)
(2017/C 070/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible and well founded, and




as a result:






—


annul the decision of 27 May 2016 of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics — Luxembourg, registering the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities in Bertrange Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s registration at the Kirchberg childcare facilities;










—


annul the decision of 7 October 2016 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 June 2016 against that decision;










—


grant damages in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;










—


order the defendant to pay all 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 breach of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and infringement of the rules relating to the burden of evidence. In this connection, the applicant alleges that the defendant granted derogations to other families while refusing him such a derogation, without such a difference in treatment being justified by objective circumstances.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration, breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter.
Case T-699/14: Judgment of the General Court of 11 January 2017 — Topps Europe v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Abuse of dominant position — Grant of licences in respect of intellectual-property rights for football-related collectibles — Decision rejecting a complaint — Access to the file — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Manifest error of assessment — Relevant market — Exclusive licence — Single branding — Excessive prices)
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition policy, dominant position, intellectual property, price agreement, professional sport, trade licence








C_2017053EN.01002801.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/28





Judgment of the General Court of 11 January 2017 — Topps Europe v Commission
(Case T-699/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Abuse of dominant position - Grant of licences in respect of intellectual-property rights for football-related collectibles - Decision rejecting a complaint - Access to the file - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Manifest error of assessment - Relevant market - Exclusive licence - Single branding - Excessive prices))
(2017/C 053/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Topps Europe Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, QC, then by R. Subiotto, QC, and A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, lawyer, and subsequently by T. de la Mare, QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and M. Farley, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, lawyers) and Panini SpA (Modena, Italy) (represented by: F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and M. Varga, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5123 final of 15 July 2014 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant in Case AT.39899 — Licensing of intellectual-property rights for football collectibles.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Topps Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Panini Spa.






(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
Case C-14/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA
Date: 2017-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, right to justice, rights of the defence, supplies contract, technical specification, tendering








C_2017168EN.01001902.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA
(Case C-14/17)
(2017/C 168/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VAR Srl

Defendant: Iveco Orecchia SpA

Questions referred







1


Must Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it requires that proof that the products to be supplied are equivalent to the original products be presented at the stage of submission of the tender?










2


In the alternative, in the event that Question (a) on interpretation is to be answered in the negative: which steps are required to ensure that there is respect for the principles of equal treatment and impartiality, of open competition and sound administration, and for other tenderers’ rights of defence and right to be heard?






(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).