do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-71/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 February 2017 — David Vicente Fernandes v Gabinete Português de Carta Verde
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, Portugal, indemnification, insurance company, insurance contract, right of action








C_2017129EN.01000502.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 February 2017 — David Vicente Fernandes v Gabinete Português de Carta Verde
(Case C-71/17)
(2017/C 129/07)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: David Vicente Fernandes

Defendant: Gabinete Português de Carta Verde

Questions referred







A.


Does insurance taken out in Luxembourg produce legal effects in Portugal in the same way as if the corresponding policy had been issued in Portugal?










B.


Is the Gabinete Português de Carta Verde the compensation body referred to in Article 24(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) and, as the body responsible for compensating the injured parties in the cases referred to in Article 20(1) of the Directive, is it accountable in the same way as the Luxembourg insurance company?










C.


In the present case, is it sufficient to sue the compensation body or is it also necessary to sue the insurance company? In the latter case, can the insurance company be sued at its headquarters in Luxembourg or must the action be brought against its representative in Portugal?










D.


In the event that the insurance company does not have a representative in Portugal, who should be sued so that full compensation is paid, where there is an unlimited civil liability insurance policy?






(1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8305 — Rockwell Collins/B/E Aerospace) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017042EN.01001001.xml










9.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8305 — Rockwell Collins/B/E Aerospace)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 42/08)






1.


On 2 February 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Rockwell Collins (USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking B/E Aerospace (USA) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Rockwell Collins is a manufacturer and supplier of aviation and integrated solutions for both commercial and government applications. Its principal products include flight deck avionics, cabin electronics, mission communications, simulation and training, and information management for commercial airliners and business jets,










—


B/E Aerospace is a manufacturer and supplier of aircraft cabin interior products, including aircraft cabin seating, lighting systems, oxygen systems, food and beverage preparation and storage equipment, galley systems, and modular lavatory systems.














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.8305 — Rockwell Collins/B/E Aerospace, 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-16/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Mast-Jägermeister v EUIPO (Beakers) (Community design — Application for Community designs representing beakers — ‘Representation suitable for reproduction’ — Lack of precision of the representation with regard to the scope of the protection sought — Refusal to remedy the deficiencies — Refusal to attribute a date of filing — Articles 36 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 4(1)(e) and 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, glass, packaging product








C_2017086EN.01002601.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/26





Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Mast-Jägermeister v EUIPO (Beakers)
(Case T-16/16) (1)

((Community design - Application for Community designs representing beakers - ‘Representation suitable for reproduction’ - Lack of precision of the representation with regard to the scope of the protection sought - Refusal to remedy the deficiencies - Refusal to attribute a date of filing - Articles 36 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 4(1)(e) and 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002))
(2017/C 086/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2015 (Case R 1842/2015 3), concerning applications for the registration of beakers as Community designs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case T-82/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION — Earlier EU word mark Evolution — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017086EN.01002602.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/26





Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
(Case T-82/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION - Earlier EU word mark Evolution - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 086/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented initially by M. Garayalde Niño and A. Alpera Plazas, and subsequently by M. Garayalde Niño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 (Case R 0725/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann and International Gaming Projects.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders International Gaming Projects Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/231 of 9 February 2017 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the fourth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, intervention buying, invitation to tender, minimum price, purchase price, skimmed milk powder, tendering








L_2017035EN.01001501.xml










10.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 35/15








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/231
of 9 February 2017
         
on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the fourth 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 fourth 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 fourth 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 7 February 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, 9 February 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).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8368 — KKCG/Foxconn Technology/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2017042EN.01001101.xml










9.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8368 — KKCG/Foxconn Technology/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 42/09)






1.


On 31 January 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings KKCG Group (Switzerland), ultimately controlled by the Valea Foundation (Liechtenstein), and Foxconn Technology CZ s.r.o. (Czech Republic, Foxconn Technology), ultimately controlled by Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd (Taiwan, Hon Hai), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the NewCo (Czech Republic) by way of a purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are as follows:
—   KKCG Group: strategic investments in various fields, in particular in oil and gas, gaming and entertainment, tourism and the machining industry mainly in Europe,
—   Foxconn Technology: part of Hon Hai, active globally in design, development, manufacturing, assembly and after-sales services for computer, communications and consumer electronics companies,
—   The NewCo: private equity investment primarily in technology companies in the EEA.










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.8368 — KKCG/Foxconn Technology/JV, 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-635/16: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — IPA v Commission
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: accounting system, audit, auditing, debt








C_2017112EN.01005101.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/51





Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — IPA v Commission
(Case T-635/16) (1)

(2017/C 112/71)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
Case C-283/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — M.S. v P.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 41(1) — Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Enforcement of a decision in a Member State — Application submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement — National legislation requiring recourse to be had to the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dependant, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, maintenance obligation, mutual recognition principle








C_2017104EN.01002201.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/22





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — M.S. v P.S.
(Case C-283/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Enforcement of a decision in a Member State - Application submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement - National legislation requiring recourse to be had to the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement))
(2017/C 104/32)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M.S.

Defendant: P.S.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Chapter IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, in particular Article 41(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance creditor who has obtained an order in one Member State and wishes to enforce it in another Member State may make an application directly to the competent authority of the latter Member State, such as a specialised court, and cannot be required to submit the application to that court through the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement;










2.


Member States are required to give full effect to the right laid down in Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 by amending, where appropriate, their rules of procedure. In any event, it is for the national court to apply Article 41(1), if necessary refusing to apply any conflicting provision of national law and, as a consequence, to allow a maintenance creditor to submit her application directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement, even if national law does not make provision for such an application.






(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
Case C-68/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — IR v JQ
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: church, equal treatment, freedom of religious beliefs, professional qualifications, religious discrimination, working environment








C_2017144EN.01002601.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — IR v JQ
(Case C-68/17)
(2017/C 144/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: IR

Respondent: JQ

Questions referred







1.


Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the church can determine with binding effect that an organisation such as the defendant in the present proceedings, where employees in managerial positions are required to act in good faith and with loyalty, shall differentiate between employees who belong to the church and those who belong to another church or to none at all?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative:






a)


Must the provision of national law, in this case Paragraph 9(2) of the Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (General Law on equal treatment), according to which unequal treatment of this kind on the basis of the religious affiliation of employees is justified in accordance with the church’s self-concept, be disapplied in these proceedings?










b)


What requirements apply, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, in respect of a requirement for employees of a church or one of the other organisations mentioned to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos?










(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case C-560/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Application for subsidiary protection — Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status — Right to be heard — Scope — Right to an interview — Right to call and cross-examine witnesses)
Date: 2017-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, area of freedom, security and justice, foreign national, refugee, right of asylum, rights of the defence, stateless person








C_2017104EN.01001101.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-560/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Application for subsidiary protection - Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status - Right to be heard - Scope - Right to an interview - Right to call and cross-examine witnesses))
(2017/C 104/17)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M

Defendants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

The right to be heard, as applicable in the context of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, does not require, as a rule, that, where national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provides for two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection respectively, the applicant for subsidiary protection is to have the right to an interview relating to his application and the right to call or cross-examine witnesses when that interview takes place.
An interview must nonetheless be arranged where specific circumstances, relating to the elements available to the competent authority or to the personal or general circumstances in which the application for subsidiary protection has been made, render it necessary in order to examine that application with full knowledge of the facts, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.


(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.