do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8349 — KKR &amp; Co/The GfK Verein/GfK) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, market research, merger control








C_2017071EN.01000101.xml










7.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8349 — KKR & Co/The GfK Verein/GfK)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 71/01)
On 27 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 32017M8349. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2016/798 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on railway safety (OJ L 138, 26.5.2016)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: intra-EU transport, national implementing measure, rail transport, safety standard, transport safety




L_2017059EN.01004101.xml










7.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 59/41







Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2016/798 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on railway safety

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 138 of 26 May 2016
)


On page 134, in Article 33, paragraph 1:
for:


‘1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3, 4, Articles 8 to 11, Article 12(5), Article 15(3), Articles 16 to 19, Article 21(2), Article 23(3) and (7), Article 24(2), Article 26(3) and Annexes II and III by 16 June 2019. They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.’,


read:


‘1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3, 4, Articles 8 to 11, Article 12(5), Article 15(3), Articles 16 to 19, Article 21(2), Article 22(3) and (7), Article 23(3), Article 24(2), Article 26(3) and Annexes II and III by 16 June 2019. They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8390 — PSPIB/TIAA/Vantage) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information service, information technology industry, merger control








C_2017071EN.01000102.xml










7.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8390 — PSPIB/TIAA/Vantage)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 71/02)
On 1 March 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 32017M8390. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-146/17: Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Mondi v ACER
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: electrical energy, energy law, judicial proceedings








C_2017129EN.01003401.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/34





Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Mondi v ACER
(Case T-146/17)
(2017/C 129/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mondi AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: B. Rajal, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision given by the Board of Appeal of the defendant on 17 February 2017 in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated) concerning the rejection of the application for leave to intervene lodged by the applicant; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeal of the defendant and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant had no legitimate interest in the outcome of the appeal proceedings.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, since the Board of Appeal failed to notify the applicant of the position taken by the defendant in relation to the application made by the applicant for leave to intervene.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), leather, originating product








C_2017072EN.01000301.xml










8.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/3





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2017/C 72/03)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Chamois leather


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1153/2012 of 3 December 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of chamois leather originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 334, 6.12.2012, p. 31)


7.12.2017






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-111/17 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: early childhood, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, parental responsibility, residence








C_2017144EN.01003202.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/32





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ
(Case C-111/17 PPU)
(2017/C 144/42)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OL

Defendant: PQ

Question referred

What is the appropriate interpretation of the concept of ‘habitual residence’, within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Regulation (ΕC) No 2201/2003 (1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, in the case of an infant who fortuitously or due to force majeure has been born in a place other than that which her parents with joint parental responsibility for the child intended to be the place of her habitual residence, and was then unlawfully retained by one parent in the State where she was born, or removed to a third State. More specifically, is physical presence a necessary and self-evident prerequisite, in all circumstances, for establishing the habitual residence of a person, and in particular a new-born child?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8352 — KKR/KSL/Apple Leisure Group) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control, travel agency








C_2017071EN.01000201.xml










7.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8352 — KKR/KSL/Apple Leisure Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 71/03)
On 1 March 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 32017M8352. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-252/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, information storage and retrieval, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006204.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 (Beyond Scale)
(Case T-252/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/94)
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-390/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — proceedings brought by the Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Point 6 of Annex III — Validity — Procedure — Amendment of a proposal for a Council directive after the Parliament has given an opinion — No fresh consultation of the Parliament — Article 98(2) — Validity — Reduced rate of VAT precluded from being applied to the supply of digital books electronically — Principle of equal treatment — Comparability of two situations — Supply of digital books electronically and on all physical means of support)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, consultation procedure, electronic publishing, equal treatment, recording medium, supply, tax relief, transmission network








C_2017144EN.01000502.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/5





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — proceedings brought by the Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)
(Case C-390/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point 6 of Annex III - Validity - Procedure - Amendment of a proposal for a Council directive after the Parliament has given an opinion - No fresh consultation of the Parliament - Article 98(2) - Validity - Reduced rate of VAT precluded from being applied to the supply of digital books electronically - Principle of equal treatment - Comparability of two situations - Supply of digital books electronically and on all physical means of support))
(2017/C 144/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

Other parties: Marszałek Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prokurator Generalny

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, or of Article 98(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with point 6 of Annex III thereto.


(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
Council Decision (EU) 2017/426 of 7 March 2017 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Denmark, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Denmark, European Committee of the Regions, appointment of members








L_2017064EN.01010801.xml










10.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 64/108








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/426
of 7 March 2017
         
appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Denmark, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Danish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. On 5 April 2016, by Council Decision (EU) 2016/552 (4), Mr Thomas KASTRUP-LARSEN was replaced by Mr Erik NIELSEN as a member.












(2)


A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Erik NIELSEN.












(3)


An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the appointment of Ms Kirstine BILLE as a member of the Committee of the Regions,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






(a)


as a member:






—


Ms Kirstine BILLE, Deputy Mayor of Syddjurs Municipality;














(b)


as an alternate member:






—


Ms Kirsten JENSEN, Deputy Mayor of Hillerød Municipality.










Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 7 March 2017.


For the Council


The President

L. GRECH
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2016/552 of 5 April 2016 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Denmark of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 95, 9.4.2016, p. 12).
Case T-622/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Lauritzen Holding v EUIPO — DK Company (IWEAR) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark IWEAR — Earlier European Union word mark INWEAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017129EN.01001501.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/15





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Lauritzen Holding v EUIPO — DK Company (IWEAR)
(Case T-622/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark IWEAR - Earlier European Union word mark INWEAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 129/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lauritzen Holding AS (Drøbak, Norway) (represented by: P. Walsh and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and subsequently by D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Intervener: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented initially by M. Nielsen and E. Skovbo, and subsequently by E. Skovbo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1935/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between IC Companys A/S and Lauritzen Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lauritzen Holding AS to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by IC Companys A/S for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case T-295/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — SymbioPharm v EMA (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Commencement of the procedure for referral to the EMA — Articles 31 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and medicinal products with similar designations — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, admissibility, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation, public health








C_2017144EN.01004501.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/45





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — SymbioPharm v EMA
(Case T-295/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Commencement of the procedure for referral to the EMA - Articles 31 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and medicinal products with similar designations - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 144/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: SymbioPharm GmbH (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, I. Ratescu, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU asking for annulment of the letter from the EMA of 1 April 2016 to initiate a referral procedure referred to in Articles 32 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), concerning medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and similarly named medicinal products following a notification by the Federal Republic of Germany under Article 31 of that Directive.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


SymbioPharm GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
Case T-117/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006202.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/62





Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)
(Case T-117/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/92)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Case C-116/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Reinhard Nagel v Swiss International Air Lines AG
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, damage, indemnification, traveller








C_2017178EN.01000602.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Reinhard Nagel v Swiss International Air Lines AG
(Case C-116/17)
(2017/C 178/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Reinhard Nagel

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Questions referred







1.


Can an air carrier make the deduction in all cases or is this dependent on the extent to which national law permits it or the court regards it as appropriate?










2.


In so far as national law is applicable or the court is to exercise its discretion: is compensation under Article 7 of the regulation (1) intended to redress only the inconvenience and loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it also intended to address material damage?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).