do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-719/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Implied rejection decision — Decision rejecting the complaint — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2017070EN.01001702.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/17





Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol
(Case T-719/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Implied rejection decision - Decision rejecting the complaint - Duty to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff))
(2017/C 070/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: LP (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [confidential]
 (2), and seeking annulment of that order.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders LP to bear his/her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office (Europol) in the present instance.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

(2)  Confidential information hidden.
Case T-419/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament (Public works contracts — Procurement procedure — Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Annulment of the procurement procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Market value — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building industry, electrotechnology, tendering, works contract








C_2017063EN.01002601.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/26





Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament
(Case T-419/15) (1)

((Public works contracts - Procurement procedure - Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Annulment of the procurement procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Market value - Manifest error of assessment))
(2017/C 063/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Chrétien and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decisions contained in the letters with references D(2015)24297 and D(2015).28116 from the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, respectively of 29 May and 11 June 2015, notifying the applicants of the annulment of the procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 for the award of Lot No 75, entitled ‘electricity — power’ for the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg (Luxembourg).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Case T-225/15: Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU trade mark medialbo — Earlier EU word mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Registration of the transfer of the mark — Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, education, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01002401.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/24





Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo)
(Case T-225/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU trade mark medialbo - Earlier EU word mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 063/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, Arizona, United States) (represented by: C. Bergmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Microchip Technology and Alexander Bopp.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


QuaMa Quality Management GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case T-54/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark NETGURU — Absolute ground for refusal — Lac k of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, registered trade mark, right to justice, software, trade-mark law








C_2017063EN.01002701.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/27





Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU)
(Case T-54/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark NETGURU - Absolute ground for refusal - Lac k of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 063/37)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Netguru sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented: initially by K. Jarosiński, and subsequently by T. Grzybkowski, T. Guzek and M. Jackowski, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 (Case R 144/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign NETGURU as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Netguru sp. z o.o. to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-29/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — RQ v Commission
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Member of the European Parliament, parliamentary immunity, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017095EN.01001501.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/15





Action brought on 17 January 2017 — RQ v Commission
(Case T-29/17)
(2017/C 095/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RQ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare his action admissible and well founded;










—


consequently, annul the European Commission’s decision of 2 March 2016, C(2016)1449 final, relating to a request for waiver of immunity, notified on 11 March 2016 and of which the Director General learned on 14 March 2016 on his return from mission;










—


so far as necessary, annul the decision of 5 October 2016, under reference Ares(2016)5814495 — 07/10/2016, notified on 7 October 2016, by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint, which he had submitted on 10 June 2016 under reference No R/317/16;










—


order the defendant in any event to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134(1) and 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), in particular Article 23 thereof, and of Article 17 of the Protocol (No. 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and breach of the principle requiring the administration to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular Article 24 thereof, and breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in particular infringement of the third indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of the public interest.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and manifest error of assessment.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the normal exercise of the rights of the defence, in particular of the right to be heard, the duty of impartiality and the observance of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the failure to act diligently, in particular as regards the observance of reasonable time-limits.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017015EN.01000401.xml










17.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 January 2017
(2017/C 15/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0594 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,91 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4361 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87808 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4830 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0709 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0558 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,38 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3729 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5023 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0056 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4172 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3927 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2159 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4916 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5144 




KRW


South Korean won


1 253,65 




ZAR


South African rand


14,4212 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3107 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5318 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 160,47 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7313 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,926 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,1692 




THB


Thai baht


37,524 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4130 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8780 




INR


Indian rupee


72,1670 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Call for proposals and related activities under the 2017 work plan of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, action programme, fuel cell, hydrogen, invitation to tender








C_2017015EN.01000501.xml










17.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/5





Call for proposals and related activities under the 2017 work plan of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking
(2017/C 15/04)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of the call for proposals and related activities under the 2017 work plan of the Fuel cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH 2 JU).
This work plan, including deadlines and budgets for the activities, is available through the Participant Portal website (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal) along with information on the modalities of the call and related activities, and guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals. All this information will be updated as necessary on the same Participant Portal.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8234 — Enel/CDP Equity/Cassa Depositi e Prestiti/Enel Open Fiber/Metroweb Italia) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2017015EN.01000101.xml










17.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8234 — Enel/CDP Equity/Cassa Depositi e Prestiti/Enel Open Fiber/Metroweb Italia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 15/01)
On 15 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 Italian language 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 32016M8234. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-25/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, egg, milk product, pharmaceutical product, protein products, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2017063EN.01004401.xml










27.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/44





Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
(Case T-25/17)
(2017/C 063/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé Sur Vire, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 981 041 in respect of the word mark ‘PROTICURD’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2016 in Case R 247/2016-4

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-24/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)
Date: 2017-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adhesive, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2017086EN.01003001.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/30





Action brought on 17 January 2017 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)
(Case T-24/17)
(2017/C 086/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: LA Superquimica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: D-Tack GmbH (Hüttlingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘D-TACK’ — Application for registration No 9 650 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 in Case R 1983/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the EUIPO decision dated 15/11/2016;










—


order EUIPO and those whose oppose this request to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal failed to consider Sitadex extracts concerning Spanish trade mark registration Nos: 2515958, 2516679, 2542249, 2591412 and 2668711 submitted by the applicant;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to consider the proof of use submitted by the applicant.