do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-638/16 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X and X v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Article 25(1)(a) — Visa with limited territorial validity — Issuing of a visa on humanitarian grounds or because of international obligations — Concept of ‘international obligations’ — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Geneva Convention — Issuing of a visa where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is established — No obligation)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, cruel and degrading treatment, diplomatic representation, foreign national, right of asylum, third country








C_2017144EN.01001302.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/13





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X and X v État belge
(Case C-638/16 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 25(1)(a) - Visa with limited territorial validity - Issuing of a visa on humanitarian grounds or because of international obligations - Concept of ‘international obligations’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Geneva Convention - Issuing of a visa where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is established - No obligation))
(2017/C 144/18)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: X and X

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for a visa with limited territorial validity made on humanitarian grounds by a third-country national, on the basis of Article 25 of the code, to the representation of the Member State of destination that is within the territory of a third country, with a view to lodging, immediately upon his or her arrival in that Member State, an application for international protection and, thereafter, to staying in that Member State for more than 90 days in a 180-day period, does not fall within the scope of that code but, as EU law currently stands, solely within that of national law.


(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case T-356/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006301.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/63





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)
(Case T-356/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/96)
Language of the case: German
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Case T-436/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Neka Novin v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, arms control, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, principle of proportionality, trade restriction








C_2017121EN.01002501.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/25





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Neka Novin v Council
(Case T-436/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality))
(2017/C 121/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), and on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), as communicated by a notice of 15 March 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the Council to bear half of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-194/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission (Competition — Mergers — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — International express small package delivery services in the EEA — Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS — Decision declaring the merger incompatible with the internal market — Likely effects on prices — Econometric analysis — Rights of defence)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Netherlands, United States, domestic market, economic concentration, logistics, market access, merger control, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2017121EN.01002001.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/20





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission
(Case T-194/13) (1)

((Competition - Mergers - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - International express small package delivery services in the EEA - Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS - Decision declaring the merger incompatible with the internal market - Likely effects on prices - Econometric analysis - Rights of defence))
(2017/C 121/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented initially by A. Ryan, B. Graham, Solicitors, W. Knibbeler and P. Stamou, lawyers, and then by A. Ryan, W. Knibbeler, P. Stamou, A. Pliego Selie, F. Hoseinian and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan, N. von Lingen and H. Leupold, and subsequently by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: FedEx Corp. (Memphis, Tennessee, United States) (represented initially by F. Carlin, Barrister, G. Bushell, Solicitor, and Q. Azau, lawyer, then by F. Carlin, G. Bushell and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express);










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by United Parcel Service, Inc.;










3.


Orders FedEx Corp. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8254 — HP/Printer business of Samsung Electronics) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: computer equipment, economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control








C_2017071EN.01000401.xml










7.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8254 — HP/Printer business of Samsung Electronics)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 71/05)






1.


On 28 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 HP, Inc. (United States of America) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the printer business of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (Republic of Korea) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for HP: multinational technology company that manufactures and sells electronic devices, including PCs and printers.
—   for Samsung: Samsung is a multinational company headquartered in the Republic of Korea that is a major supplier of consumer electronic devices (including printers), information technology & mobile communication systems (including mobile phones, smartphones, and tablets), and device solutions (such as semiconductors and mobile application processors). The Samsung printer business is a global supplier of printers and printer-related products and services for home office and business use.










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.8254 — HP/Printer business of Samsung Electronics, 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’).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017071EN.01000301.xml










7.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 March 2017
(2017/C 71/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0592 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,55 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4337 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86300 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5335 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0694 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9673 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,55 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3091 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5290 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9328 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3937 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4183 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2235 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5079 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4936 




KRW


South Korean won


1 222,76 




ZAR


South African rand


13,7644 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3050 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4090 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 138,32 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7113 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,251 




RUB


Russian rouble


61,5602 




THB


Thai baht


37,104 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2896 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6859 




INR


Indian rupee


70,5955 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-173/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hand tool, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006203.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/62





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)
(Case T-173/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/93)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Case T-432/15: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006201.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/62





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)
(Case T-432/15) (1)

(2017/C 144/91)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Decision of the Court of Justice of 7 March 2017 on official holidays and judicial vacations
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU), operation of the Institutions, public holiday








C_2017168EN.01000201.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/2





DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
of 7 March 2017
on official holidays and judicial vacations
(2017/C 168/02)
THE COURT,
having regard to Article 24(2), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure,
whereas it is necessary, in accordance with that provision, to establish the list of official holidays and to set the dates of the judicial vacations,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The list of official holidays within the meaning of Article 24(4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure is established as follows:






—


New Year’s Day,










—


Easter Monday,










—


1 May,










—


Ascension,










—


Whit Monday,










—


23 June,










—


15 August,










—


1 November,










—


25 December,










—


26 December.





Article 2

For the period from 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:






—


Christmas 2017: from Monday 18 December 2017 to Sunday 7 January 2018 inclusive,










—


Easter 2018: from Monday 26 March 2018 to Sunday 8 April 2018 inclusive,










—


Summer 2018: from Monday 16 July 2018 to Friday 31 August 2018 inclusive.





Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 7 March 2017.

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

Registrar



K. LENAERTS

President
Case T-253/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, information storage and retrieval, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006205.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/62





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)
(Case T-253/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/95)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
Case C-120/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural holding, aid to agriculture, early retirement, farmer, inheritance








C_2017168EN.01002302.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets
(Case C-120/17)
(2017/C 168/31)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Other party to the proceedings: Ministru kabinets

Questions referred







(1)


In view of the shared competences of the European Union and the Member States in the area of agriculture, are the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 (1) to be interpreted, in the light of one of the objectives of that regulation (that farmers should participate in the early retirement measure), as precluding a Member State, in the context of measures implementing that regulation, from enacting legislation pursuant to which support for early retirement from farming may be inherited?










(2)


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, that is, if the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 prohibit the inheritance of early retirement support, is it possible, in a situation in which a legal provision of a Member State has been held by the European Commission, under the appropriate procedure, to be compatible with the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 and farmers have participated in the early retirement measure in accordance with national practice, for an individual right to inherit the support granted under that measure to have been acquired?










(3)


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, that is, if it is possible for such an individual right to have been acquired, can the conclusion reached at the meeting of the European Commission Committee on Rural Development of 19 October 2001, to the effect that support for early retirement from farming cannot be passed on to the heirs of the transferor of a farm, be regarded as a ground for the early termination of the acquired individual right referred to above?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).