do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to the definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/303 of Amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 (OJ L 52, 28.2.2017)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU expenditure, European Commission, adoption of the budget, amending budget, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU)








L_2017068EN.01000401.xml










14.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 68/4







Corrigendum to the definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/303 of Amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2016
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 52 of 28 February 2017
)

On pages 2 to 115, in the titles and tables header:
for:


                  ‘2017’,

read:


                  ‘2016’.
Case T-174/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, household electrical appliance








C_2017144EN.01003901.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/39





Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
(Case T-174/16) (1)

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
(2017/C 144/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1652/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Corrigendum to definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/304 of Amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 (OJ L 52, 28.2.2017)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU expenditure, European Commission, adoption of the budget, amending budget, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU)








L_2017068EN.01000501.xml










14.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 68/5







Corrigendum to definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/304 of Amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2016
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 52 of 28 February 2017
)

On pages 117 to 180, in the titles and tables header:
for:


                  ‘2017’,

read:


                  ‘2016’.
Case T-164/17: Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, fruit, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2017144EN.01005502.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/55





Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)
(Case T-164/17)
(2017/C 144/75)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia), Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pink Lady America (Yakima, Washington, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WILD PINK’ — Application for registration No 11 701 216

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 87/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicants before the Office’s Fourth Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and the rights of defense;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU,










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or of Article 8(5) of Regulation No. 207/2009.
Corrigendum to the definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/305 of Amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 (OJ L 52, 28.2.2017)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU expenditure, European Commission, adoption of the budget, amending budget, budgetary resources, financial year, general budget (EU)








L_2017068EN.01000601.xml










14.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 68/6







Corrigendum to the definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/305 of Amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2016
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 52 of 28 February 2017
)

On pages 182 to 206, in the titles and table headers:
for:


                  ‘2017’,

read:


                  ‘2016’.
Case C-132/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Peugeot Deutschland GmbH v Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, advertising, audiovisual industry, audiovisual production, broadcasting, motor car, provision of services, video communications








C_2017213EN.01001801.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Peugeot Deutschland GmbH v Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV
(Case C-132/17)
(2017/C 213/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peugeot Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

Question referred

Does a person who runs a video channel on the YouTube internet service on which internet users can view short advertising videos for new passenger car models operate an audiovisual media service within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2010/13/EU? (1)



(1)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1).
Case T-175/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, household electrical appliance








C_2017144EN.01003902.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/39





Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
(Case T-175/16) (1)

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
(2017/C 144/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1725/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case T-132/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark popchrono — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, foodstuff, means of transport, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01003402.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/34





Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)
(Case T-132/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark popchrono - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 144/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: IR (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Malte Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2015 (Case R 217/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Mr IR.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr IR to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Public perception of the risks associated with antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: animal health, animal production, antibiotic, antimicrobial resistance, consumer information, health risk, livestock farming, sample survey

Public perception of the risks associated
with antimicrobial resistance (AMR)

EFSA asked consumers in 12 EU countries* 
about their perception of the risks posed to human health 
from AMR in food-producing animals. 

Antibiotics** are used
to treat infections
in farm animals

12%
don’t
know

Antibiotics are used
more to treat animals
than humans

43%
NO

17%
don’t
know

40%
YES

Antibiotics
don’t 
kill viruses

44%
NO

9%
don’t
know

47%
YES

15%
NO

73%
YES

18%
NO

34%
don’t
know

48%
YES

AMR is widespread 
on European
poultry farms

8%
NO

81%
YES

11%
don’t
know

Overuse of antibiotics 
in animals makes them 
become ineffective

Are Europeans
aware that...

52%
YES

14%
NO

34%
don’t
know

AMR is widespread 
on European 
pig farms

AMR can be transferred
from animals
to farmers

41%
NO

38%
YES

21%
don’t
know

AMR can be transferred
from animals
to veterinarians

48%
NO

28%
YES

53%
NO

19%
don’t
know

AMR can be transferred
to humans through contact
with farmed animals

17%
don’t
know

AMR can be transferred 
to humans by handling
raw meat

44%
YES

39%
NO

31%
YES

21%
don’t
know

58%
YES

17%
don’t
know

25%
NO

AMR can be transferred 
from farm animals
to consumers

In the last
12 months did you
acquire any

YES43%

NO

57%

about 
resistance 
to antibiotics?

16%

39%

IN   FARM ANIMALS

84%

IN   HUMANS

61%

25%
YES

7%
DON’T 
KNOW

Do you have 
enough
knowledge 
about the use of 
antibiotics in farmed 
animals?

13%
YES

16%
DON’T 
KNOW

Do you think 
enough is being 
done to 
control 
or prevent 
overuse of antibiotics 
in farm animals?

68%
NO

71%
NO

Read the full report to find out more: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/1183e

efsa.europa.eu

© European Food Safety Authority, 2017. 
Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided that the source is acknowledged.
ISBN 978-92-9199-936-1 | doi: 10.2805/692166 | TM-02-17-046-EN-N

*   Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and UK
** Antibiotics are types of antimicrobials.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8353 — CVC/Corialis) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, building materials, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017079EN.01000101.xml










14.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8353 — CVC/Corialis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 79/01)
On 17 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 32017M8353. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-188/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Discrimination based on religion or belief — Genuine and determining occupational requirement — Meaning — Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU employment policy, European social policy, Muslim, equal treatment, religious discrimination, working conditions








C_2017151EN.01000402.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/4





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA
(Case C-188/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Genuine and determining occupational requirement - Meaning - Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf))
(2017/C 151/05)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

Defendant: Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
Case T-48/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — ADDE v Parliament (Interim measures — Financing of a political party — Institutional law — Bank guarantee — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: financial aid, guarantee, party financing, terms for aid








C_2017144EN.01004702.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/47





Order of the President of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — ADDE v Parliament
(Case T-48/17 R)
((Interim measures - Financing of a political party - Institutional law - Bank guarantee - Lack of urgency))
(2017/C 144/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (ADDE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures ordering a waiver of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition of the prefinancing of the subsidy flowing from Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 13 December 2016 on the financing granted to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-157/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Discrimination based on religion or belief — Workplace regulations of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing visible political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace — Direct discrimination — None — Indirect discrimination — Female worker prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Islam, Muslim, equal treatment, religious discrimination, social policy, staff regulations








C_2017151EN.01000301.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV
(Case C-157/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Workplace regulations of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing visible political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace - Direct discrimination - None - Indirect discrimination - Female worker prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf))
(2017/C 151/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

Defendant: G4S Secure Solutions NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing an Islamic headscarf, which arises from an internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign in the workplace, does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief within the meaning of that directive.
By contrast, such an internal rule of a private undertaking may constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 if it is established that the apparently neutral obligation it imposes results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the pursuit by the employer, in its relations with its customers, of a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Corrigendum to Council Resolution concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved (‘EU Football Handbook’) (OJ C 444, 29.11.2016)
Date: 2017-03-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU Member State, international cooperation, police cooperation, public safety, sporting event, user guide, violence








C_2017079EN.01000601.xml










14.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/6





Corrigendum to Council Resolution concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved (‘EU Football Handbook’)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 444 of 29 November 2016
)
(2017/C 79/06)
On page 13, paragraph ‘3.14a 
Bilateral Agreements
’ is replaced by the following:

‘3.14a   
Bilateral Agreements


It is strongly recommended that, at an early stage of the preparations, countries participating in the event should adopt a bilateral agreement with the host authorities setting out the arrangements for information exchange, deployment of visiting police delegations and other police cooperation matters in connection with the event. Such bilateral agreements can also include areas of governmental and judicial cooperation. A template for a bilateral agreement will be prepared. It will include the list of issues which should be considered and agreed between the two parties. The template will not be a model agreement but rather an aid to bilateral negotiation.’;

on page 15, second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘Detailed guidance on this matter is set out in Council of Europe Standing Committee Recommendation Rec (2015) 1 on Safety, Security and Service at Football Matches and other Sports Events.’.