do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Spain, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2017108EN.01001101.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/11





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2017/C 108/09)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


1.1.2017




Duration


1.1.2017-31.12.2017




Member State


Spain




Stock or Group of stocks


WHM/ATLANT




Species


White marlin (Tetrapturus albidus)




Zone


Atlantic Ocean




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


06/TQ127






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-86/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, debt, financial interests of members








C_2017178EN.01002202.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/22





Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
(Case T-86/17 R)
((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid as reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
(2017/C 178/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marion Anne Perrine Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 5 December 2016 declaring that the sum of EUR 298 497,87 had been unduly paid to the applicant and had to be recovered from her as well as debit note No 2016-1560 of 6 December 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017108EN.01000201.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 April 2017
(2017/C 108/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0678 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,49 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4354 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85510 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5748 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0708 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1665 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,058 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,91 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2315 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5397 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9404 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4085 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4291 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2957 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5319 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4948 




KRW


South Korean won


1 202,72 




ZAR


South African rand


14,6327 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3638 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4578 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 227,37 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7314 




PHP


Philippine peso


53,532 




RUB


Russian rouble


59,6596 




THB


Thai baht


36,860 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2974 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,0177 




INR


Indian rupee


69,2930 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-668/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 2(2)(a) and (b) — Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: credit institution, discrimination on the basis of nationality, driving licence, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, foreign national, identity document, loan, motor vehicle, racial discrimination








C_2017168EN.01001402.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/14





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
(Case C-668/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and (b) - Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit))
(2017/C 168/17)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jyske Finans A/S

Defendant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin is to be interpreted as not precluding the practice of a credit institution which requires a customer whose driving licence indicates a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association to produce additional identification in the form of a copy of the customer’s passport or residence permit.


(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Case C-336/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 3 — Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor — Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers — Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, dismissal, labour law, social policy, transfer of businesses, working time








C_2017168EN.01000701.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/7





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB
(Case C-336/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3 - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings - Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor - Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers - Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor))
(2017/C 168/07)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Unionen

Defendants: Almega Tjänsteförbunden,
ISS Facility Services AB,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, the transferee must, when dismissing an employee more than one year after the transfer of the undertaking, include, in the calculation of that employee’s length of service, which is relevant for determining the period of notice to which that employee is entitled, the length of service which that employee acquired with the transferor.


(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Case C-638/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/64/EU — Article 2(1)(c) — Article 5(1)(a) — Definitions of ‘smoking tobacco’, ‘tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split’ and ‘industrial processing’)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, processing industry, smoking, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2017168EN.01001301.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/13





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel
(Case C-638/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 2(1)(c) - Article 5(1)(a) - Definitions of ‘smoking tobacco’, ‘tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split’ and ‘industrial processing’))
(2017/C 168/15)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eko-Tabak s. r. o.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that dried, flat, irregular, partly stripped leaf tobacco and/or parts thereof which have undergone primary drying and controlled dampening, which contain glycerine and which are capable of being smoked after simple processing by means of crushing or hand-cutting, fall within the definition of ‘smoking tobacco’ for the purpose of those provisions.


(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8419 — Segro/PSPIB/SELP/Target assets) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, storage








C_2017108EN.01000101.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8419 — Segro/PSPIB/SELP/Target assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 108/01)
On 29 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 32017M8419. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Spain, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2017108EN.01001002.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/10





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2017/C 108/08)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


1.1.2017




Duration


1.1.2017-31.12.2017




Member State


Spain




Stock or Group of stocks


BUM/ATLANT




Species


Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans)




Zone


Atlantic Ocean




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


05/TQ127






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-594/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Metabolic Balance Holding v EUIPO (Metabolic Balance) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark Metabolic Balance — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, education, nutrition, registered trade mark, scientific research, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01002401.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/24





Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Metabolic Balance Holding v EUIPO (Metabolic Balance)
(Case T-594/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark Metabolic Balance - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 161/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Metabolic Balance Holding GmbH (Isen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and J. Németh, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2015 (Case R 2156/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Metabolic Balance as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Metabolic Balance Holding GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case C-176/16 P: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Registration of the name ‘Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG)’ — Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Liguria, bread, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








C_2017202EN.01000702.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/7





Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission
(Case C-176/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Registration of the name ‘Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG)’ - Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings))
(2017/C 202/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni and G. Pescatore, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Moro and J. Guillem Carrau, Agents, and subsequently by: F. Moro, Agent)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Proforec Srl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016
Case T-211/17: Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Official Journal, Publications Office of the European Union, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, invitation to tender








C_2017213EN.01003101.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/31





Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission
(Case T-211/17)
(2017/C 213/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Amplexor Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxemburg) (represented by J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


accept the present application as formally correct;










—


annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 as to its substance;










—


accordingly, cancel the call for tenders No 10651;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs;










—


reserve for the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 in so far as it places the applicant in second position in the call for tenders No AO 10651 — Processing of notices for publication in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ S) (OJ 2016/S 143-258115).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


The first plea in law alleges infringement of the rules and principles of EU law in so far as the Publications Office, by offering to tenderers which were not its contracting partners at the time of the submission the chance to benefit from greater funding in order to finance take-over costs, manifestly infringed the principle of equality. According to the applicant, such an approach, besides being gravely discriminatory, seriously undermines both the raison d’être and the foundations of public procurement procedures.










2.


The second plea in law alleges misuse of power.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8312 — Panasonic Corporation/Ficosa International) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2017108EN.01001801.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8312 — Panasonic Corporation/Ficosa International)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 108/16)






1.


On 27 March 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Panasonic Corporation (‘Panasonic’, Japan) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over Ficosa International (‘Ficosa’, Spain) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Panasonic is active in the development and engineering of electronic technologies and solutions across various sectors.










—


Ficosa focuses on the investigation, development, manufacture and commercialisation of systems and components for different types of vehicles.














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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










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.8312 — Panasonic Corporation/Ficosa International, 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-58/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Improvement of port security — Directive 2005/65/EC — Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 — Infringement — No assessment of port security — Port boundaries, port security assessments and port security officers — No definition)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European security, harbour installation, infringement procedure (EU), maritime safety, port administration, terrorism








C_2017168EN.01001501.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/15





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-58/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Improvement of port security - Directive 2005/65/EC - Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 - Infringement - No assessment of port security - Port boundaries, port security assessments and port security officers - No definition))
(2017/C 168/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, in failing to ensure that, for the German ports of Düsseldorf, Köln-Niehl I, Godorf, Duisburg-Rheinhausen, Neuss, Duisburg Außen-/Parallelhafen, Krefeld-Linn, Stromhafen Krefeld, Duisburg Ruhrort-Meiderich, Gelsenkirchen and Mülheim, in the Land of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), the boundaries of each port are defined, port security assessments and port security plans are carried out, and that port security officers are approved, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security;










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.