do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-351/15: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2017 — Papapanagiotou v Parliament (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Office furniture — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Award criteria — Decision to cancel the tendering procedure — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, furniture industry, supplies contract, tendering








C_2017078EN.01003101.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/31





Order of the General Court of 20 January 2017 — Papapanagiotou v Parliament
(Case T-351/15) (1)

((Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Office furniture - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Decision to cancel the tendering procedure - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 078/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Papapanagiotou AVEEA (Serres, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. Biström and S. Toliušis, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision D(2015)12887 of the Parliament of 27 April 2015, adopted in the context of tendering procedure INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 regarding the supply of office furniture (OJ 2013/S 138-239094) and rejecting the tender submitted by Papapanagiotou.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Papapanagiotou AVEEA.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case C-30/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcohol, basis of tax assessment, beer, excise duty, flavouring








C_2017161EN.01000701.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu
(Case C-30/17)
(2017/C 161/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu

Respondent: Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

Question referred

In the light of Article 3(1) and the objectives of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) in the determination of the basis of assessment for flavoured beers using the Plato scale, must the extract resulting from the flavourings added following the completion of fermentation be added to the real extract of the finished product or is the extract resulting from the added substances to be disregarded?


(1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.
Case T-33/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, acquisition of property, confidentiality, disclosure of information, intellectual property, protection of privacy, provision of documents, right to information








C_2017104EN.01005102.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/51





Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA
(Case T-33/17)
(2017/C 104/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Amicus Therapeutics UK Ltd (Gerrards Cross, United Kingdom) and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (Cranbury, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision, communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 14 December 2016, to release Clinical Study Report AT1001-011 under Regulation 1049/2001/EC;










—


in the alternative, remit the decision to the defendant in order to reconsider it, following an opportunity for the applicants to make specific submissions on particular parts of the clinical study report that should be redacted prior to release; and










—


order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





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 that the clinical study report in question attracts a general presumption of confidentiality for the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in light of: (i) the scheme and terms of the relevant EU sectoral legislation; (ii) the obligation on EU institutions to give effect to obligations under Article 39(3) of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement; and (iii) the importance to be attached to the applicants’ fundamental rights to privacy and to property.












2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the only legally permissible outcome of a proper balancing exercise, under Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, would have been a decision not to release the clinical study report in question, in light of: (i) the compelling weight of the applicants’ private interest in avoiding disclosure, given the destructive effect such disclosure would have upon fundamental property and business rights; and (ii) the merely vague and generic public interest in disclosure, there being no sufficiently pressing public need for disclosure.
Case T-45/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cycle and motorcycle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017078EN.01003802.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/38





Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)
(Case T-45/17)
(2017/C 078/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein and A. Kleinheyer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Udo Schmidt (Reken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘CK1’ — Application for registration No 12 514 956

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 in Case R 2193/2015-2

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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017019EN.01000201.xml










20.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 January 2017
(2017/C 19/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0668 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,23 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86555 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5478 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0729 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,0193 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3728 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4928 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0747 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4113 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4169 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2762 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4857 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5216 




KRW


South Korean won


1 255,90 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5056 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3241 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5210 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 266,32 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7462 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,405 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,5802 




THB


Thai baht


37,759 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4223 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,4441 




INR


Indian rupee


72,6875 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-31/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Azores, EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, peripheral region








C_2017104EN.01005101.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/51





Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-31/17)
(2017/C 104/71)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and A. Tavares de Almeida, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from financing the amount of EUR 660 202,73 relating to the expenditure declared by the Portugal under the technical assistance heading of the POSEI programme for the Azores in the financial years 2012 and 2013;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (OJ 2006 L 42, p. 1).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state the grounds and an infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 170, p. 90).
Special Report No 33/2016 — ‘Union Civil Protection Mechanism: the coordination of responses to disasters outside the EU has been broadly effective’
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, aid evaluation, civil defence, coordination of aid, emergency aid, humanitarian aid, infectious disease, man-made disaster, natural disaster








C_2017019EN.01000301.xml










20.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/3





Special Report No 33/2016
‘Union Civil Protection Mechanism: the coordination of responses to disasters outside the EU has been broadly effective’
(2017/C 19/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 33/2016 ‘Union Civil Protection Mechanism: the coordination of responses to disasters outside the EU has been broadly effective’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8266 — MCHC/Ube/MCIS-CN/AETZ-CN Assets) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017019EN.01000101.xml










20.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8266 — MCHC/Ube/MCIS-CN/AETZ-CN Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 19/01)
On 13 January 2017, 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 English 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 32017M8266. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-35/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017070EN.01003001.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/30





Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)
(Case T-35/17)
(2017/C 070/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Weber-Stephen Products LLC (Palatine, Illinois, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and A. Jauch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 258 162 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘iGrill’

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2016 in Case R 538/2016-2

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-34/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER)
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aeronautical industry, education, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017078EN.01003701.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/37





Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER)
(Case T-34/17)
(2017/C 078/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Skyleader a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Malmstedt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SKYLEADER’ — EU trade mark No 6 347 827

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 Novembre 2016 in Case R 805/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision No 11084 C of the Cancellation Division and the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and Sky International to pay the costs of the proceedings both before the General Court and EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of EU law and of substantial procedural measures of EU law;










—


Infringement of principles of good and sound administration;










—


Infringement of Rule 45(5) of Regulation No 2868/95.