do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-152/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, freedom to provide services, right of establishment, service concession, services contract, single market, tendering








C_2017213EN.01001902.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
(Case C-152/17)
(2017/C 213/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA

Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Questions referred







(1)


Is the interpretation of national law that excludes review of prices in contracts relating to ‘special sectors’, particularly as regards those with a different object from those to which the Directive 2004/17 (1) refers, but that are connected with those sectors by an instrumental link, compatible with EU law (in particular, Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and Directive 2004/17?










(2)


Is Directive 2004/17 (if it should be considered that exclusion of revision of prices in all contracts concluded and applied within ‘special sectors’ arises directly therefrom) compatible with the principles of the European Union (in particular Articles 3(1) TEU, 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), ‘in the light of the unfairness, disproportionality, and distortion of contractual balance and, therefore, of the rules governing an efficient market’?






(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).
Case C-269/16: Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de lo Social n°2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, consumer protection, freedom to provide services, lawyer, legal aid, remuneration of work, right of establishment, social-security benefit, wage determination








C_2017202EN.01001301.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/13





Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de lo Social no2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
(Case C-269/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/20)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017092EN.01000601.xml










24.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 March 2017
(2017/C 92/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0786 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,36 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4356 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86273 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5095 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0700 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1478 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,021 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,22 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2685 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5555 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9038 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4132 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4387 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3780 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5303 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5086 




KRW


South Korean won


1 207,38 




ZAR


South African rand


13,4933 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4268 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4178 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 363,72 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7771 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,309 




RUB


Russian rouble


62,2001 




THB


Thai baht


37,320 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3608 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5962 




INR


Indian rupee


70,6095 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-117/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission (Actions for annulment — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States — Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated — Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission — Refusal of the request — Act not open to challenge — Confirmatory measure — No new substantive particulars — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: accession to the European Union, admissibility, agricultural levy, agricultural surplus, common organisation of markets, farming sector, over-production, sugar, surplus stock








C_2017144EN.01003401.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/34





Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission
(Case T-117/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States - Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission - Refusal of the request - Act not open to challenge - Confirmatory measure - No new substantive particulars - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 144/44)
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Naaber-Kivisoo and M.P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, then by P. Ondrůšek, assisted by M. Kärson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 declining to amend European Commission Decision 2006/776/EC of 13 November 2006 on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (OJ 2006 L 314, p. 35).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible.










2.


Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.










3.


Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case C-150/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 February 2017 in Case T-479/14, Kendrion v European Union
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, damages, fine, infringement of EU law, interest, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2017161EN.01001402.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/14





Appeal brought on 24 March 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 February 2017 in Case T-479/14, Kendrion v European Union

(Case C-150/17 P)
(2017/C 161/18)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kendrion NV, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:






—


annul point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;










—


reject Kendrion’s claim at first instance for compensation in respect of the material damage allegedly suffered or, in the furthest alternative, reduce that claim for compensation to EUR 175 709,87;










—


order Kendrion to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward three grounds.
The first ground alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of a causal link, in so far the General Court found that the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable period was the decisive cause of the alleged material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee charges, whereas an undertaking’s own choice not to pay the fine during the course of the proceedings before the EU Courts is, according to settled case-law, the decisive cause of the payment of such charges.
The second ground alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of damage, in so far as the General Court refused to apply to the alleged material damage — relating to the payment of the charges for bank guarantees — the same condition as that which it had formulated for the alleged damage in relation to the payment of interest on the amount of the fine, namely that the applicant at first instance had to show that the financial burden linked to that latter payment was greater than the benefit which it might have derived from not paying the fine.
The third ground alleges an error in law in the determination of the period in which the alleged damage occurred and an inadequate statement of reasons, in so far as the General Court, without setting out reasons for so finding, found that the period in which the material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee charges occurred could have differed from the period in which the General Court had situated the unlawful conduct that had allegedly resulted in that damage.
Case C-149/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, audiovisual piracy, computer piracy, copyright, literary and artistic property, transmission network








C_2017213EN.01001901.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer
(Case C-149/17)
(2017/C 213/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Michael Strotzer

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 8(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘effective and dissuasive sanctions for infringements of the right to make works available to the public’ are still provided for even when the owner of an Internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing is excluded from liability to pay damages if the owner of that Internet connection can name at least one family member who, besides him or her, might have had access to that Internet connection, without providing further details, established through appropriate investigations, as to when and how the Internet was used by that family member?










1.


Should Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘effective measures for the enforcement of intellectual property rights’ are still provided for even when the owner of an Internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing is excluded from liability to pay damages if the owner of that Internet connection can name at least one family member who, besides him or her, might have had access to that Internet connection, without providing further details, established through appropriate investigations, as to when and how the Internet was used by that family member?






(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

(2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.
Case C-148/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Peek & Cloppenburg KG
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01000401.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Peek & Cloppenburg KG
(Case C-148/17)
(2017/C 231/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

Defendant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf

Questions referred







1.


Is the fact that the invalidity or revocation of a national trade mark which forms the basis of a claim for the seniority of an EU trade mark and which has been surrendered or allowed to lapse may be established a posteriori only where the conditions of invalidity or revocation are present not only at the time when the trade mark was surrendered or allowed to lapse but also at the time of the judicial decision establishing its invalidity or revocation, compatible with Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC? (1)











2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
Does claiming seniority under Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) have the effect that the right under the national trade mark lapses and can no longer be used in such a way as to maintain rights attached to it, or is the national trade mark preserved by virtue of EU law, even though it no longer exists in the register of the Member State concerned, with the result that it can and must continue to be used in such a way as to maintain the rights attached to it?






(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case T-167/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — RV v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Placed on leave and automatically retired — Application for a stay of execution — Not urgent)
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, paid leave, retirement conditions








C_2017178EN.01002602.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/26





Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — RV v Commission
(Case T-167/17 R)
((Interim measures - Civil Service - Placed on leave and automatically retired - Application for a stay of execution - Not urgent))
(2017/C 178/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 placing the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and retiring the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-151/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 24 March 2017 — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, freedom of self-determination, health care, market approval, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, protection of privacy, quantitative restriction, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2017161EN.01001501.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 24 March 2017 — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health
(Case C-151/17)
(2017/C 161/19)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Swedish Match AB

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Questions referred

Are Articles 1(c) and 17 of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) invalid by reason of:






i.


breach of the EU general principle of non-discrimination;










ii.


breach of the EU general principle of proportionality;










iii.


breach of Article 5(3) TEU and the EU principle of subsidiarity;










iv.


breach of Article 296(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’);










v.


breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU; and










vi.


breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.






(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014, L 127, p. 1).
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2017-03-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, flavouring, foodstuff








C_2017092EN.01000901.xml










24.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/9





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2017/C 92/04)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:
On page 95, between the explanatory note to CN subheading ‘2103 90 30 Aromatic bitters of an alcoholic strength by volume of 44,2 % to 49,2 % vol containing from 1,5 % to 6 % by weight of gentian, spices and various ingredients and from 4 % to 10 % of sugar, in containers holding 0,5 litre or less’ and the explanatory notes to CN heading ‘2104 Soups and broths and preparations therefor; homogenised composite food preparations’, the following text is inserted:







‘2103 90 90




Other

This subheading includes products, which would otherwise fall within Chapter 22, prepared for culinary purposes and rendered unsuitable for consumption as beverages.
This subheading includes in particular ‘cooking liquors’ which are products referred to colloquially as ‘cooking wines’, ‘cooking Port’, ‘cooking Cognac’ and ‘cooking brandy’. Cooking wines consist of ordinary wine or of de-alcoholised wine, or of a mixture of both, to which salt, or a combination of several seasonings (e.g. salt and pepper) has been added, rendering the product unsuitable for consumption as a beverage. In general, those products contain at least 5 g/l of salt.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.