do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-596/16: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — HP v Commission and eu-LISA
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, health care, health care system, infectious disease, information system, married person, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), therapeutics








C_2017112EN.01005003.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/50





Order of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — HP v Commission and eu-LISA
(Case T-596/16) (1)

(2017/C 112/70)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-26/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8308 — Munksjö/Ahlstrom II) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pulp and paper industry








C_2017047EN.01000801.xml










14.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8308 — Munksjö/Ahlstrom II)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 47/08)






1.


On 6 February 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Munksjö (‘Munksjö’, Finland) enters into a full merger, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation, with Ahlstrom Corporation (‘Ahlstrom’, Finland) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Munksjö, registered in Finland but headquartered in Stockholm, is an international speciality paper company. It comprises four business segments: (i) Decor; (ii) Release Liners; (iii) Industrial Applications; and (iv) Graphics and Packaging.










—


Ahlstrom, headquartered in Helsinki, is an international manufacturer of high performance fiber-based materials. It comprises two segments: (i) Filtration and Performance; and (ii) Specialties.














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.










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.8308 — Munksjö/Ahlstrom II, 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’).
Case T-688/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 — Rejection of the action at first instance, after its referral back by the General Court, as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded — Prospect of promotion)
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pay scale, promotion








C_2017095EN.01001001.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/10





Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors
(Case T-688/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 - Rejection of the action at first instance, after its referral back by the General Court, as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded - Prospect of promotion))
(2017/C 095/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Auditors (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and B. Schäfer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015, Schönberger v Court of Auditors (F-14/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:112), and seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Declares that Mr P. Schönberger is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8336 — Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings/Marubeni/Metro Pacific Investments/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, medical institution, medical research, merger control








C_2017047EN.01000101.xml










14.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8336 — Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings/Marubeni/Metro Pacific Investments/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 47/01)
On 7 February 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 32017M8336. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/332 of 14 February 2017 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pistacchio Verde di Bronte (PDO)]
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, designation of origin, labelling, nut, product designation








L_2017050EN.01001101.xml










28.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 50/11








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/332
of 14 February 2017
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pistacchio Verde di Bronte (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Pistacchio Verde di Bronte’, registered under Commission Regulation (EU) No 21/2010 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Pistacchio Verde di Bronte’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 14 February 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 21/2010 of 12 January 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pistacchio Verde di Bronte (PDO)] (OJ L 8, 13.1.2010, p. 3).

(3)  
            OJ C 403, 1.11.2016, p. 14.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017047EN.01000301.xml










14.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 February 2017
(2017/C 47/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0629 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,90 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4359 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84890 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4780 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0673 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9018 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,02 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3137 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5022 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9177 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3867 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3917 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2471 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4808 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5113 




KRW


South Korean won


1 223,31 




ZAR


South African rand


14,1809 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3062 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4485 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 158,89 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7283 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,059 




RUB


Russian rouble


61,6700 




THB


Thai baht


37,276 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3159 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6261 




INR


Indian rupee


71,1880 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Opinion 3/15: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 February 2017 — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled — Article 3 TFEU — Exclusive external competence of the European Union — Article 207 TFEU — Common commercial policy — Commercial aspects of intellectual property — International agreement that may affect common rules or alter their scope — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(3)(b) and (4) — Exceptions and limitations for the benefit of people with a disability.)
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agreement (EU), external competence (EU), facilities for people with disabilities, intellectual property, physically disabled person, ratification of an agreement








C_2017112EN.01000302.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/3





Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 February 2017 — European Commission
(Opinion 3/15) (1)

((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled - Article 3 TFEU - Exclusive external competence of the European Union - Article 207 TFEU - Common commercial policy - Commercial aspects of intellectual property - International agreement that may affect common rules or alter their scope - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(3)(b) and (4) - Exceptions and limitations for the benefit of people with a disability.))
(2017/C 112/04)
Language of the case: all the official languages

Requested by

European Commission (represented by: B. Hartmann, F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Samnadda, agents)

Operative part

The conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union.


(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case T-15/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Pandalis v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus) ((EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Cystus — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the mark))
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2017095EN.01001002.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/10





Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Pandalis v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)
(Case T-15/16) (1)

(((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cystus - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the mark)))
(2017/C 095/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2015 (Case R 2839/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems and Mr Pandalis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case C-242/16: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air space, airport, civil aviation, crew, establishment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, labour relations








C_2017129EN.01001304.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/13





Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited
(Case C-242/16) (1)

(2017/C 129/20)
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8345 — HPS/MDP/NFP) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, merger control








C_2017047EN.01000102.xml










14.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8345 — HPS/MDP/NFP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 47/02)
On 7 February 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 32017M8345. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8331 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa/Bridgepoint/Primonial Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control, real estate business








C_2017047EN.01000601.xml










14.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8331 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa/Bridgepoint/Primonial Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 47/06)






1.


On 6 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 undertakings Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (France) and Bridgepoint Europe V FIPS (France) controlled by Bridgepoint Group Limited (United Kingdom) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Primonial Holding (France) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Crédit Mutuel Arkéa is a French cooperative banking group which also operates in Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland.










—


Bridgepoint is an independent private equity firm that invests primarily in European companies.










—


Primonial Holding operates in France in the area of savings plans – fund selection, design, management and advice.














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 the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit to it their observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date of publication of this notification. 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.8331 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa/Bridgepoint/Primonial Holding, 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-81/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, principle of proportionality, tax authorities, tax inspection, tax relief, tax return








C_2017161EN.01000802.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava
(Case C-81/17)
(2017/C 161/11)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Zabrus Siret SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

Questions referred







1.


Does Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) together with the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an administrative practice and/or an interpretation of the provisions of national legislation precluding the assessment and recognition of the right to reimbursement of VAT resulting from adjustments in respect of transactions carried out during a period, preceding the most recent inspection period, which has already been the subject of a tax inspection and in which the tax authorities did not find any anomalies that were such as to alter the taxable amount for VAT, notwithstanding the fact that those provisions may be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities may review a period which has previously been the subject of a tax inspection in the light of additional data and information obtained subsequently as a result of cooperation between State authorities and institutions?










2.


Must Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, national rules of a legislative nature which deny the possibility of correcting substantive errors in VAT returns for tax periods which have already been the subject of a tax inspection, the only exception being where the correction is made on the basis of a notice communicated by the tax inspectorate at the time of the previous inspection?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).