do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-342/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of lawyers to provide services — Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land — Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, land register, lawyer, notary, official document, real property, transfer of property








C_2017144EN.01000501.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer
(Case C-342/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of lawyers to provide services - Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land - Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary))
(2017/C 144/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant: Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognising in that Member State such authentication carried out by a lawyer established in another Member State.










2.


Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognition in that Member State of such authentication carried out, in accordance with his or her national law, by a lawyer established in another Member State.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8333 — Mitsui Group/NS Group/Anglia Rail Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, rail transport, transport company








C_2017073EN.01000102.xml










9.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8333 — Mitsui Group/NS Group/Anglia Rail Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 73/02)
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 32017M8333. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2017073EN.01000301.xml










9.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/3





Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran
(2017/C 73/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr MOGHISSEH Mohammad (No 20), Mr MORTAZAVI Amir (No 22), Mr PIR-ABASSI Abbas (No 23), Mr SALAVATI Abdolghassem (No 25), Mr ABBASZADEH-MESHKINI, Mahmoud (No 33), Mr AKHARIAN Hassan (No 35), Mr AVAEE Seyyed Ali-Reza (No 36), Mr FIRUZABADI Maj-Gen Dr Seyyed (No 38), Mr GANJI Mostafa Barzegar (No 39), Mr HABIBI Mohammad Reza (No 40), Mr HEJAZI Mohammad (No 41), Mr MALEKI Mojtaba (No 49), Mr TALA Hossein (No 53), Mr BAHRAMI Mohammad-Kazem (No 56), Mr FAHRADI Ali (No 73), Mr REZVANMA-NESH Ali (No 74), Mr SADEGHI Mohamed (No 76), Mr RASHIDI AGHDAM, Ali Ashraf (No 79), Mr SARAFRAZ Mohammad (No 82) and Mr MUSAVI-TABAR, Seyyed Reza (No 86), persons appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the abovementioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 13 March 2017, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




Any observations received before 24 March 2017 will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 3 of Decision 2011/235/CFSP and Article 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.


(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.
Case T-22/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB (Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Supervision of credit institutions — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering — Corrective measures — No invitation to act — Lack of precision in the application — Act not open to challenge — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Portugal, credit institution, economic policy, indemnification, market supervision, monetary policy, money laundering, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2017144EN.01004401.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/44





Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB
(Case T-22/16) (1)

((Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Supervision of credit institutions - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering - Corrective measures - No invitation to act - Lack of precision in the application - Act not open to challenge - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2017/C 144/60)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon) (represented by: M. Ribeiro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Karpf, P. Ferreira Jorge and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the ECB illegally failed to take action against Portuguese credit institutions within the context of the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, secondly, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the act by which the ECB returned to the applicants the invitation to act which they had sent to it, and, thirdly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants as a result of that failure to act.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Comprojecto — Projectos e Construções, Lda, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Case C-551/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola -Croatia) — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Temporal and material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt — Included — Concept of ‘court’ — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, local authority, notary, official document, parking area, parking charge








C_2017144EN.01000901.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/9





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola -Croatia) — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn
(Case C-551/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Temporal and material scope - Civil and commercial matters - Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt - Included - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’))
(2017/C 144/11)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Puli-Pola

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pula Parking d.o.o.

Defendant: Sven Klaus Tederahn

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt for parking in a public car park, the operation of which has been delegated to that company by that authority, which are not in any way punitive but merely constitute consideration for a service provided, fall within the scope of that regulation.










2.


Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Case C-105/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Rural Development — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Article 33b — Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring — Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGGF, agricultural expenditure, agricultural holding, aid for restructuring, aid to agriculture, financial aid, financial control, rural development, terms for aid








C_2017144EN.01001301.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/13





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission
(Case C-105/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Rural Development - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 33b - Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring - Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations))
(2017/C 144/17)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Case T-697/14: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Associated Newspapers (METRO)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, press agency, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01006102.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/61





Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Associated Newspapers (METRO)
(Case T-697/14) (1)

(2017/C 144/87)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Case C-122/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 March 2017 — David Smith v Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, indemnification, insurance company, insurance indemnity, motor vehicle, motor vehicle insurance, transport accident, trauma, vehicle parts








C_2017151EN.01002201.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 9 March 2017 — David Smith v Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-122/17)
(2017/C 151/29)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: David Smith

Defendants: Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General

Questions referred

Where:-






i.


the relevant provisions of national law provide for an exclusion for compulsory motor insurance in respect of persons for whom no fixed seats in a mechanically propelled vehicle have been provided,










ii.


the relevant insurance policy provides that cover will be confined to passengers travelling in fixed seating and this policy was, factually, an approved policy of insurance for the purposes of that national law at the time of the accident,










iii.


the relevant national provisions providing for such an exclusion from cover have already been adjudged to be contrary to EU law in an earlier decision of this Court (Case C-365/05 Farrell v. Whitty) and, accordingly, required to be disapplied, and










iv.


the language of the national provisions is such that it does not permit of an interpretation conforming to the requirements of EU law,
then, in litigation between private parties and a private insurance company concerning a motor accident involving a serious injury to a passenger in 1999 who was not travelling in a fixed seat, where, by consent of the parties, the national Court joined the private insurance company and the State as defendants is the national court when disapplying the relevant provisions of national law also obliged to disapply the exclusion clause contained in the motor insurance policy or otherwise preclude an insurer from relying on the exclusion clause which was in force at the time so that the injured victim could then have recovered directly as against the insurance company on foot of that policy? Alternatively, would such a result amount in substance to a form of horizontal direct effect of a Directive against a private party in a manner prohibited by EU law?
Case T-155/17: Action brought on 9 March 2017 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), originating product








C_2017129EN.01003701.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/37





Action brought on 9 March 2017 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission
(Case T-155/17)
(2017/C 129/56)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Van Haren Schoenen BV (Waalwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible;










—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 of 14 December 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. The pleas put forward are identical to those put forward in Case T-154/17, Deichmann v Commission.
Case C-232/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Simet SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Transport sector — Inter-regional bus transport services — Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Right to compensation for expenses arising from the performance of public service obligations — National judicial decision — Aid incompatible with the internal market)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, public transport, services of general interest, single market








C_2017168EN.01001702.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/17





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Simet SpA v European Commission
(Case C-232/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Transport sector - Inter-regional bus transport services - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Right to compensation for expenses arising from the performance of public service obligations - National judicial decision - Aid incompatible with the internal market))
(2017/C 168/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Simet SpA (represented by: A. Clarizia, C. Varrone and P. Clarizia, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Simet SpA shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Case C-615/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement)
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, international market, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, sanction (EU), screen, television equipment








C_2017144EN.01001002.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/10





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission
(Case C-615/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement))
(2017/C 144/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (represented by: M. Struys, A. Fall, L. Eskenazi and C. Erol, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, G. Meessen and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017073EN.01000401.xml










9.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 March 2017
(2017/C 73/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0556 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,65 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4335 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86753 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5223 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0702 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,9513 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3130 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5503 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9434 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3968 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4193 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,1982 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5219 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4947 




KRW


South Korean won


1 216,36 




ZAR


South African rand


13,7908 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2953 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4213 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 144,80 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7082 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,198 




RUB


Russian rouble


61,7573 




THB


Thai baht


37,236 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3151 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7130 




INR


Indian rupee


70,4960 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.