do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-503/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa — Spain) — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Registrar — Definition of ‘a court or tribunal’ — Compulsory jurisdiction — Exercise of judicial functions — Independence — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: independence of the judiciary, jurisdiction, legal profession








C_2017112EN.01000801.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/8





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa — Spain) — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez
(Case C-503/15) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Registrar - Definition of ‘a court or tribunal’ - Compulsory jurisdiction - Exercise of judicial functions - Independence - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
(2017/C 112/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ramón Margarit Panicello

Defendant: Pilar Hernández Martínez

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to rule on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa (Registrar of the Single-Member Court dealing with matters involving violence against women, Terrassa, Spain).


(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Case T-71/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Jaguar Land Rover v EUIPO — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Land Glider — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks LAND ROVER — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01004402.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/44





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Jaguar Land Rover v EUIPO — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider)
(Case T-71/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Land Glider - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks LAND ROVER - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 104/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama, Japan) (A. Franke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan Jidosha.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd;










3.


Orders Nissan Jidosha KK to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Case T-783/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — SolarWorld v Commission (Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Approval of a downward adjustment of the minimum import price pursuant to an undertaking accepted in connection with anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings — Union industry — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, economic support, import (EU), import price, minimum price, originating product, semi-metal, solar collector








C_2017104EN.01004301.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/43





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — SolarWorld v Commission
(Case T-783/14) (1)

((Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Approval of a downward adjustment of the minimum import price pursuant to an undertaking accepted in connection with anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings - Union industry - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
(2017/C 104/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision, contained in a letter of 15 September 2014 addressed to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for the Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, bearing the reference TRADE/H4 (2014) 3328168, on the downward adjustment of the minimum import price for imports of photovoltaic modules and cells manufactured by Chinese exporting producers subject to a price undertaking with effect from 1 October 2014 for the last quarter of 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
Case T-107/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, damages, issue of securities, ownership, public debt, securities








C_2017129EN.01002401.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/24





Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB
(Case T-107/17)
(2017/C 129/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Frank Steinhoff (Hamburg, Germany), Ewald Filbry (Dortmund, Germany), Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG (Gräfenberg, Germany), Werner Bäcker (Rodgau, Germany), EMB Consulting SE (Mühltal, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should order the defendant to pay the following sums plus interest in each case at a rate of 5 % above the respective base rate from the date on which the action was commenced:






—


to the first applicant: EUR 314 000;










—


to the second applicant: EUR 54 950;










—


to the third applicant: EUR 2 355 000;










—


to the fourth applicant: EUR 303 795;










—


to the fifth applicant: EUR 750 460.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action for damages, the applicants claim that the defendant breached its obligations by failing to refer, in its opinion of 17 February 2012 on the terms of securities issued or guaranteed by the Greek State (CON/2012/12), to the unlawfulness of the proposed restructuring of Greece’s public debt through a mandatory exchange by Law 4050/2012.
In support of the action, the applicants raise four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: failure to refer to the impermissibility of the compulsory restructuring in the light of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, since amending clauses cannot effectively be inserted retroactively into existing government bonds










2.


Second plea in law: failure to find that the expropriatory effect of the envisaged Greek legislative proposal, which provided for a mandatory exchange without appropriate compensation being laid down in the legislation itself, constituted an infringement of the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union










3.


Third plea in law: failure to refer to an infringement of Article 63 TFEU










4.


Fourth plea in law: failure to refer to an infringement of Article 124 TFEU
Case T-191/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council (Common Customs Tariff — Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Objection to existing suspensions — Equivalence of products — Procedure for handling objections)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: CCT duties, agricultural product, common customs tariff, industrial product, suspension of customs duties








C_2017104EN.01004001.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/40





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council
(Case T-191/14) (1)

((Common Customs Tariff - Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products - Objection to existing suspensions - Equivalence of products - Procedure for handling objections))
(2017/C 104/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Caeiros and M. Clausen, and subsequently by A. Caieros and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201), to the extent that those measures deprived the applicant of its entitlement to three duty suspensions which it previously enjoyed under TARIC Codes 2918 2900 80, 3811 2900 10 and 3811 9000 30.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case C-219/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Industrial policy — Directive 93/42/EEC — Checks on the conformity of medical devices — Notified body appointed by the manufacturer — Obligations of that body — Defective breast implants — Implants manufactured using silicone — Liability of the notified body)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approximation of laws, defective product, industrial policy, medical device, producer's liability, quality control of industrial products








C_2017112EN.01000502.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/5





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH
(Case C-219/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Industrial policy - Directive 93/42/EEC - Checks on the conformity of medical devices - Notified body appointed by the manufacturer - Obligations of that body - Defective breast implants - Implants manufactured using silicone - Liability of the notified body))
(2017/C 112/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Elisabeth Schmitt

Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The provisions of Annex II to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Article 11(1) and (10) and Article 16(6) of the directive, are to be interpreted as meaning that the notified body is not under a general obligation to carry out unannounced inspections, to examine devices and/or to examine the manufacturer’s business records. However, in the face of evidence indicating that a medical device may not comply with the requirements laid down in Directive 93/42, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, the notified body must take all the steps necessary to ensure that it fulfils its obligations under Article 16(6) of the directive and Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.1 to 4.3 and 5.1 of Annex II to the directive;










2.


Directive 93/42, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the procedure relating to the EC declaration of conformity, the purpose of the notified body’s involvement is to protect the end users of medical devices. The conditions under which culpable failure by that body to fulfil its obligations under the directive in connection with that procedure may give rise to liability on its part vis-à-vis those end users are governed by national law, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Case C-94/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Obligation to state reasons — Evidence of the infringement — Distortion of the evidence)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, cartel, domestic market, market-sharing agreement, paraffin, price agreement








C_2017112EN.01000402.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission
(Case C-94/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Obligation to state reasons - Evidence of the infringement - Distortion of the evidence))
(2017/C 112/06)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG (represented by: U. Itzen and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dimsisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case T-99/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU office or agency, award of contract, equal treatment, satellite communications, satellite navigation, tendering








C_2017144EN.01004801.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/48





Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA
(Case T-99/17)
(2017/C 144/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eutelsat SA (Paris, France) (represented by: L. de la Brosse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the application is admissible;










—


grant the request for investigative measures put forward by the applicant;










—


annul (i) the decision for the rejection of the applicant’s ‘Best and Final Offer’ (‘BAFO’) taken by the GSA in relation to the contract notice No GSA/CD/14/14 — ‘Galileo service operator’, and notified on 29 November 2016, and (ii) the decision to award the contract to another tenderer to operate and maintain the Galileo system;










—


order the defendant to bear the expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first, modified its candidature during the course of the procedure, in violation of (i) the Tender Specifications and (ii) of the principle of equality of treatment of the tenderers.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that during the course of the procedure, GSA modified the contents of the financial criteria for the selection of the offers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the method used by GSA for ranking the price criteria did not enable the choice of the offer that was most economically advantageous.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the composition of the evaluation committee was not in accordance with the rules and its impartiality cannot be guaranteed.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first submitted an abnormally low tender.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach to the rules of transparency and equality of treatment of the candidates, and an advantage in contradiction to the rules concerning conflicts of interest.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the GSA made a number of errors concerning the Qualitative Award Criteria.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the GSA disregarded its obligation to give sufficient reasons for the contested decisions.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the value of the contract is much lower than the total value stated in the contract award notice published by GSA and the BAFO of Eutelsat.
Case C-507/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017(request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Coordination of the laws of the Member States — Belgian transposition measure — Commercial agency contract — Principal established in Belgium and agent established in Turkey — Choice of Belgian law clause — Applicable law — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Compatibility)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Türkiye, association agreement (EU), national implementing measure, national law, residence, sales representative, self-employed person, termination of a contract








C_2017112EN.01000802.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/8





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017(request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV
(Case C-507/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Coordination of the laws of the Member States - Belgian transposition measure - Commercial agency contract - Principal established in Belgium and agent established in Turkey - Choice of Belgian law clause - Applicable law - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Compatibility))
(2017/C 112/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd

Defendant: Petersime NV

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents and the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation transposing that directive into the law of the Member State concerned, which excludes from its scope of application a commercial agency contract in the context of which the commercial agent is established in Turkey, where it carries out activities under that contract, and the principal is established in that Member State, so that, in such circumstances, the commercial agent cannot rely on rights which that directive guarantees to commercial agents after the termination of such a commercial agency contract.


(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Case T-513/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Map) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Map — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, market research, registered trade mark, theory of marketing, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01004601.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/46





Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Map)
(Case T-513/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Map - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 104/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Map as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1);










2.


Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.