do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-199/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Rita Hoffmeyer and Rudolf Meyer v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, strike, transport regulations, traveller








C_2017221EN.01001001.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Rita Hoffmeyer and Rudolf Meyer v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-199/17)
(2017/C 221/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Rita Hoffmeyer, Rudolf Meyer

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(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.
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: San Marino, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2017120EN.01001401.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/14





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2017/C 120/06)



Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuance of euro coins are authorised to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, one of these being that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national side features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.


Issuing country
: The Republic of San Marino


Subject of commemoration
: 750th anniversary of the birth of Giotto


Description of the design
: On the left a detail from the clock tower of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, one of Giotto’s architectural works; vertically, the words SAN MARINO, GIOTTO and the dates 1267-2017; on the right a detail from the portrait of Giotto and the abbreviation of the artist Luciana De Simoni (LDS); on the bottom, the letter R, indicating the ‘Zecca’ (mint) of Rome.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.


Number of coins to be issued
: 


Date of issue
: March 2017


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national sides of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Holy See, commemoration, euro, issuing of currency




C_2017120EN.01001501.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/15





New national side of euro coins intended for circulation
(2017/C 120/07)



Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.


Issuing country
: The Vatican City State


Subject of commemoration
: 1950th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint Paul


Description of the design
: The design features Saint Peter and Saint Paul and their symbols, respectively the keys and the sword. At the top is the inscription ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’, in semi-circle. At the bottom, in semi-circle is the inscription ‘1950o DEL MARTIRIO DEI SANTI PIETRO E PAOLO’. At the bottom left is the year of issuance ‘2017’ and at the bottom right is the mint mark ‘R’. Between them is the name of the artist ‘G. TITOTTO’.
The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.


Number of coins to be issued
: 


Date of issue
: June 2017


(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).
Case C-201/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Holger Schlosser and Nicole Schlosser v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01001101.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Holger Schlosser and Nicole Schlosser v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-201/17)
(2017/C 231/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Holger Schlosser and Nicole Schlosser

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(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.
Case C-191/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, electronic banking, electronic money, financial legislation, intra-EU payment, right of establishment, single market








C_2017239EN.01002401.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG
(Case C-191/17)
(2017/C 239/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte

Defendant: ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG

Question referred

Must Article 4(14) of Directive 2007/64/EC (1) on payment services in the internal market (the Payment Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that an online savings account with which a customer (without notice and without any particular involvement of the bank) may by way of telebanking make deposits into and withdrawals from a reference account (a current account in Austria) held in his name is also to be included within the term ‘payment account’ (Article 4(14) of that directive) and thus falls within the scope of that directive?


(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).
Case C-192/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Cobra SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community certification, EC conformity marking, harmonisation of standards, labelling, marketing standard, satellite communications, technical standard, telecommunications equipment, testing








C_2017231EN.01000701.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Cobra SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
(Case C-192/17)
(2017/C 231/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Cobra SpA

Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred







1.


Should Directive 1999/5/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a manufacturer who makes use of the procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Annex III, and when there are harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, must consult a notified body and thus ensure that the CE marking (certifying compliance with the essential requirements set out in that directive) is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, in the event that a manufacturer, having made use of the procedure referred to in the second paragraph of Annex III, and when there are harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, has nonetheless voluntarily consulted a notified body, asking it to confirm the list of tests mentioned above, must that manufacturer ensure that the CE marking certifying compliance with the essential requirements set out in Directive 1999/5/EC is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, in the event that a manufacturer, having made use of the procedure referred to in the second paragraph of Annex III, and when there are harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, has nonetheless subsequently voluntarily consulted a notified body, asking it to confirm the list of tests mentioned above, and has voluntarily ensured that the product is accompanied by the identification number of the body consulted, must that manufacturer also quote that body’s identification number on both the product and its packaging?






(1)  Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10).
Case C-203/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Eberhard Schmeer v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, strike, transport regulations, traveller








C_2017221EN.01001002.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Eberhard Schmeer v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-203/17)
(2017/C 221/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eberhard Schmeer

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(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.
Case C-198/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Ivan Wallmann v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01001001.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Ivan Wallmann v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-198/17)
(2017/C 231/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ivan Wallmann

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Question referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017120EN.01001301.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/13





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 April 2017
(2017/C 120/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0605 




JPY


Japanese yen


116,22 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84840 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5553 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0678 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,1035 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,697 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2485 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5205 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8965 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4163 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4114 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,2416 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5320 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4869 




KRW


South Korean won


1 209,26 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5185 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3090 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4385 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 087,68 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6954 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,446 




RUB


Russian rouble


60,5067 




THB


Thai baht


36,555 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3330 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9384 




INR


Indian rupee


68,5895 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8455 — STRABAG/Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, energy industry, geothermal energy, merger control








C_2017120EN.01002701.xml










13.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 120/27





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8455 — STRABAG/Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 120/15)






1.


On 5 April 2017 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings ILBAU Liegenschaftsverwaltung AG, ultimately controlled by STRABAG SE (‘STRABAG’, Austria) and Rohöl-Aufsuchungs Aktiengesellschaft, ultimately controlled by EVN AG (‘EVN’, Austria) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over the whole of the undertaking Projektgesellschaft Geoenergie Bayern Projekt Garching a.d. Alz GmbH & Co. KG (‘JV’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for STRABAG: active worldwide in all segments of the construction business, especially in structural, construction and civil engineering, as well as road construction.
—   for EVN: mainly active in the exploration and production of oil and gas, gas storage and distribution of electricity, gas and district heating.
—   for the JV: holds the rights for the development of the deep geothermal energy project ‘Bruck’ in Garching a.d. Alz in Bavaria. The JV will further develop the Bruck project and will generate and supply electricity and district heating to third parties. Moreover, the JV is foreseen to develop other deep geothermal projects.










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.8455 — STRABAG/Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG/JV, 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.