do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-641/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 8(3) — Exclusive right of broadcasting organisations — Communication to the public — Places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee — Communication of broadcasts by TV sets installed in hotel rooms)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, hotel industry, intellectual property, television, television equipment








C_2017112EN.01001001.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH
(Case C-641/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(3) - Exclusive right of broadcasting organisations - Communication to the public - Places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee - Communication of broadcasts by TV sets installed in hotel rooms))
(2017/C 112/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH

Defendant: Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the communication of television and radio broadcasts by means of TV sets installed in hotel rooms does not constitute a communication made in a place accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case T-145/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission (EAGGF and EAFRD — Area-related measures — Expenditure excluded from financing — Flat-rate financial corrections — Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, principle of proportionality








C_2017104EN.01004501.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/45





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission
(Case T-145/15) (1)

((EAGGF and EAFRD - Area-related measures - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat-rate financial corrections - Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))
(2017/C 104/63)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Romania (represented initially by: R.-H Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, D. Bulancea, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, and subsequently by: R. Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union 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) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union 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 concerns Romania;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Romania.






(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8240 — Dana/Brevini Fluid Power and Brevini Power Transmission) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, machinery, mechanical engineering, merger control








C_2017049EN.01000101.xml










16.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8240 — Dana/Brevini Fluid Power and Brevini Power Transmission)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 49/01)
On 16 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 32016M8240. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-98/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Right to be heard — Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court — Saturation of the state of the art)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, heating








C_2017095EN.01000801.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/8





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators)
(Case T-98/15) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Right to be heard - Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court - Saturation of the state of the art))
(2017/C 095/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and S. Di Natale, and subsequently by S. Di Natale and L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It and Tubes Radiatori.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl;










4.


Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case T-594/16: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Walton v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Temporary agents — Severance grant — Revision of the calculation — Res judicata — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: servant (EU), severance pay








C_2017121EN.01003202.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/32





Order of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Walton v Commission
(Case T-594/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Civil service - Temporary agents - Severance grant - Revision of the calculation - Res judicata - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2017/C 121/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A.-C. Simon and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment notified by the Commission’s letter of 15 March 2016 rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request for revision of the calculation of the severance grant following his resignation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Robert Walton is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-24/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-624/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery, by way of compensation, of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, debt, financial interests of members








C_2017121EN.01003301.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/33





Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gollnisch v Parliament
(Case T-624/16 R)
((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery, by way of compensation, of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
(2017/C 121/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: N. Fakiroff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 1 July 2016, relating to recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 275 984,23, and of debit note No 2016-916 of 5 July 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision and to the notification of those measures by the Director-General for Finance of 6 July 2016.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017049EN.01000201.xml










16.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 February 2017
(2017/C 49/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0555 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,85 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4345 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84998 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4508 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0652 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,8523 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,42 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3015 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5143 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8662 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3761 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3809 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1923 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,4705 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5012 




KRW


South Korean won


1 205,35 




ZAR


South African rand


13,7701 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2521 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4568 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 060,98 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6959 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,719 




RUB


Russian rouble


60,9795 




THB


Thai baht


36,974 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2505 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4777 




INR


Indian rupee


70,6005 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-706/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA (Research and technological development — Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — ZONeSEC and Inachus projects — Decision refusing participation of the applicant — Action for annulment and liability)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, damages, indemnification, research project, technological change








C_2017104EN.01004201.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/42





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA
(Case T-706/14) (1)

((Research and technological development - Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - ZONeSEC and Inachus projects - Decision refusing participation of the applicant - Action for annulment and liability))
(2017/C 104/58)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented initially by R. Muñiz García and subsequently by J. Marín López, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 264 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the REA of 24 July 2014 [ARES (2014) 2461172], terminating negotiations and rejecting the participation of the applicant in the European projects Inachus and ZONeSEC and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of its exclusion from participation in the said projects and from the communication of certain information concerning the applicant following that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU to pay the costs in the present proceedings;










3.


Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
Case C-86/17 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2017 by Redpur GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15, Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, heating, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017213EN.01001601.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/16





Appeal brought on 16 February 2017 by Redpur GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15, Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-86/17 P)
(2017/C 213/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Redpur GmbH (represented by: S. Schiller, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Redwell Manufaktur GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the General Court’s judgment of 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15 and reject the opposition;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in these proceedings;










—


order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments


Applicant for an EU trade mark: Appellant

EU trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Redpur’ for goods in Class 11 — EU trade mark registration application No 10 934 305

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Other party to the proceedings

Marks or signs cited in the opposition proceedings: EU word and figurative mark No 004769717 ‘redwell INFRAROT HEIZUNGEN’ for goods in Class 11; Austrian word mark with registration No 232549 ‘Redwell’ for goods in Class 11; International word mark (WIPO) with registration No 914971, ‘Redwell’ for goods in Class 11 and Company Names in Austria ‘REDWELL Manufaktur GmbH’ for heating systems and room heaters, in particular infrared heating and infrared heating systems

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)



(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).