do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-771/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Doc@Hand project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, cost analysis, financial aid, interest, payment, reimbursement of aid








C_2017070EN.01001601.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/16





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission
(Case T-771/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Doc@Hand project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))
(2017/C 070/22)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 508015 to fund the project entitled ‘Knowledge Sharing and Decision Support for Healthcare Professionals’, concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;










2.


ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 296 149,77, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;










3.


ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 19 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (OJ L 17, 21.1.2017)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: data transmission, disclosure of information, financial instrument, financial transaction, stock-exchange transaction, technical standard








L_2017019EN.01009701.xml










25.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 19/97







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 19 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 17 of 21 January 2017
)


On page 17, title:
for:


                        ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 19 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories’,

read:


                        ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/105 of 26 October 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1247/2012 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to the format and frequency of trade reports to trade repositories according to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories’;

on page 23, place, date and signature:
for:


                     ‘Done at Brussels, 19 October 2016.’,

read:


                     ‘Done at Brussels, 26 October 2016.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8274 — Cinven/Permira/Allegro/Ceneo) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, merger control, retail trade








C_2017025EN.01000101.xml










25.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8274 — Cinven/Permira/Allegro/Ceneo)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 25/01)
On 21 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 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 32016M8274. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-679/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods — Meaning of ‘debtor’ — Employee of a legal person responsible for the unlawful introduction — Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence — Determination)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs fraud, customs union, import (EU), job description, legal person, wage earner








C_2017078EN.01000501.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
(Case C-679/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods - Meaning of ‘debtor’ - Employee of a legal person responsible for the unlawful introduction - Fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence - Determination))
(2017/C 078/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ultra-Brag AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 202(3), first indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person of which an employee, who is not its statuary representative, is responsible for the unlawful introduction of goods in the customs territory of the European Union, may be regarded as the debtor of the customs debt resulting from that introduction, where that employee introduced the goods at issue while carrying out the assignment entrusted to him by his employer and while fulfilling the instructions given, to that end, by another of the employer’s employees, empowered to give such instructions in the performance of his own duties, and who thus acted within the scope of his remit, in the name and on behalf of his employer.










2.


Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that in order to establish fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence within the meaning of that article on the part of an employer, who is a legal person, it is appropriate to refer not just to the employer himself, but also to attribute to him the conduct of the employee(s) who, while fulfilling the assignment entrusted to them by their employer with the result that they acted within the scope of their respective remits in the name and on behalf of their employer, were responsible for the unlawful introduction of the goods.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-512/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Rusal Armenal v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China — Definitive antidumping duty — Market Economy Treatment — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Cumulative assessment of imports subject to antidumping investigations — Article 3(4)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 384/96 — Undertaking offer — Article 8(3) of Regulation No 384/96)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Armenia, Brazil, China, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, thin sheet








C_2017078EN.01001701.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/17





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Rusal Armenal v Council
(Case T-512/09 RENV) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China - Definitive antidumping duty - Market Economy Treatment - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Cumulative assessment of imports subject to antidumping investigations - Article 3(4)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 384/96 - Undertaking offer - Article 8(3) of Regulation No 384/96))
(2017/C 078/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rusal Armenal ZAO (Yerevan, Armenia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, lawyers, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by S. Boelaert and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive antidumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 262, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rusal Armenal ZAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;










3.


Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
Case C-367/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’ v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 13 — Intellectual and industrial property — Infringement — Calculation of damages — Legislation of a Member State — Twice the amount of the royalties normally due)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, intellectual property, payment








C_2017078EN.01000201.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’ v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich
(Case C-367/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 13 - Intellectual and industrial property - Infringement - Calculation of damages - Legislation of a Member State - Twice the amount of the royalties normally due))
(2017/C 078/02)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’

Respondent: Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the holder of an intellectual property right that has been infringed may demand from the person who has infringed that right either compensation for the damage that he has suffered, taking account of all the appropriate aspects of the particular case, or, without him having to prove the actual loss, payment of a sum corresponding to twice the appropriate fee which would have been due if permission had been given for the work concerned to be used.


(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
Case C-36/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2017213EN.01001502.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-36/17)
(2017/C 213/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Daher Muse Ahmed

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
By order of 5 April 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) ruled that the provisions and principles of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) which govern, directly or indirectly, the time limits for lodging an application for a take-back are not applicable in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a third-country national has lodged an application for international protection in one Member State after being granted the benefit of subsidiary protection by another Member State.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.
Case T-325/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hairdressing and beauty care, medical centre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017070EN.01001701.xml










6.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/17





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love)
(Case T-325/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 070/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Moisescu and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Budapest)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 1369/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató and Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Case C-640/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — European arrest warrant in respect of Tomas Vilkas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 23 — Time limit for surrender of the requested person — Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions — Resistance of the requested person to his surrender — Force majeure)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, extradition








C_2017078EN.01000402.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — European arrest warrant in respect of Tomas Vilkas
(Case C-640/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 23 - Time limit for surrender of the requested person - Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions - Resistance of the requested person to his surrender - Force majeure))
(2017/C 078/05)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Party to the main proceedings

Tomas Vilkas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the executing and issuing judicial authorities agree on a new surrender date under that provision where the surrender of the requested person within 10 days of a first new surrender date agreed on pursuant to that provision proves impossible on account of the repeated resistance of that person, in so far as, on account of exceptional circumstances, that resistance could not have been foreseen by those authorities and the consequences of the resistance for the surrender could not have been avoided in spite of the exercise of all due care by those authorities, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
Articles 15(1) and 23 of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that those authorities remain obliged to agree on a new surrender date if the time limits prescribed in Article 23 have expired.


(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-59/15: Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Amitié v EACEA
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, debt








C_2017078EN.01004203.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/42





Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Amitié v EACEA
(Case T-59/15) (1)

(2017/C 078/59)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case T-217/16: Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia — Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron and steel industry, originating product








C_2017078EN.01003201.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/32





Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
(Case T-217/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia - Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2017/C 078/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente and A. Monreal Lasheras, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2016, L 52, p. 24).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.