do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
P8_TA(2017)0133 EU trade mark ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 April 2017 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark (codified text) (COM(2016)0702 — C8-0439/2016 — 2016/0345(COD)) P8_TC1-COD(2016)0345 Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 April 2017 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2017/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark (codification)
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018298EN.01032101.xml










23.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/321






P8_TA(2017)0133
EU trade mark ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 April 2017 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark (codified text) (COM(2016)0702 — C8-0439/2016 — 2016/0345(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure — codification)
(2018/C 298/45)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0702),










—


having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0439/2016),










—


having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),










—


having regard to Rules 103 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0054/2017),










A.


whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance;












1.


Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.




P8_TC1-COD(2016)0345
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 April 2017 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2017/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark (codification)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.)
Case T-247/17: Action brought on 27 April 2017 — Azarov v Council
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right of establishment, sanction (EU)








C_2017195EN.01004301.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/43





Action brought on 27 April 2017 — Azarov v Council
(Case T-247/17)
(2017/C 195/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


adopt, pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, certain measures of organisation of procedure, in particular:






—


questions to the Council;










—


call on the Council to state its position, in writing or orally, on certain aspects of the dispute;










—


send requests for information to the Council and third parties, inter alia, the Commission, EADS and Ukraine;










—


request documents or evidence relating to the case to be produced;














—


order the Council, in accordance with Article 87 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights
In the context of that plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the right to property and infringement of the freedom to conduct a business. It also criticizes the disproportionality of the restrictive measures imposed.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment
Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 May 2017 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017133EN.01000201.xml










27.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/2





Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 May 2017
(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
(2017/C 133/02)
Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate.
Modified rates are indicated in bold.
Previous table published in OJ C 73, 9.3.2017, p. 5.


































From


To


AT


BE


BG


CY


CZ


DE


DK


EE


EL


ES


FI


FR


HR


HU


IE


IT


LT


LU


LV


MT


NL


PL


PT


RO


SE


SI


SK


UK




1.5.2017


…



-0,10 




-0,10 



0,76 



-0,10 



0,45 



-0,10 




0,12 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




0,70 



0,44 



-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 



1,83 



-0,10 



1,10 


-0,36 



-0,10 




-0,10 



0,78 




1.4.2017


30.4.2017


-0,08 


-0,08 


0,76 


-0,08 


0,45 


-0,08 


0,16 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 



0,83 




0,44 



-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


1,83 


-0,08 


1,10 


-0,36 


-0,08 


-0,08 


0,78 




1.3.2017


31.3.2017



-0,08 




-0,08 



0,76 



-0,08 



0,45 



-0,08 



0,16 



-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 



1,05 



0,53 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 



1,83 



-0,08 



1,10 


-0,36 



-0,08 




-0,08 



0,78 




1.1.2017


28.2.2017



-0,07 




-0,07 




0,76 




-0,07 




0,45 




-0,07 




0,16 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,05 




0,75 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,83 




-0,07 




1,10 




-0,36 




-0,07 




-0,07 




0,78
Case C-469/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal — Coordination in the fixing of prices — Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Scope of judicial review — Classification as an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’)
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU agricultural market, Greece, Italy, Portugal, cartel, control of restrictive practices, price agreement, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), tropical fruit








C_2017202EN.01000201.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/2





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission
(Case C-469/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal - Coordination in the fixing of prices - Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Scope of judicial review - Classification as an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’))
(2017/C 202/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: FSL Holdings NV, Firma Léon Van Parys NV, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, advocaaten, and by C. Verdonck, avocate, J. Auwerx, advocaat, and B. Gielen, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders FSL Holdings NV, Firma Leon Van Parys NV and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
Case C-535/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — General obligation to register and information requirements — Unregistered chemicals — Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union)
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, chemical product, dangerous substance, export (EU), import (EU), transport of dangerous goods








C_2017202EN.01000301.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/3





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle
(Case C-535/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - General obligation to register and information requirements - Unregistered chemicals - Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union))
(2017/C 202/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Defendant: Jost Pinckernelle

intervening parties: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(12) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that substances which have not be registered at the time of their import into the territory of the European Union in accordance with that regulation may be exported outside that territory.


(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8411 — Safran Group/China Eastern Air Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017133EN.01000801.xml










27.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8411 — Safran Group/China Eastern Air Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 133/08)






1.


On 21 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 Safran Landing Systems SAS of France, and China Eastern Airlines Co. Ltd of China acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly created company constituting a joint venture by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Safran Landing Systems SAS: the manufacturing of aircraft landing gear and braking systems; Safran Landing Systems SAS belongs to Safran SA of France.
—   for China Eastern Airlines Co. Ltd: the provision of air transport services on international, domestic and regional routes; China Eastern Airlines Co. Ltd belongs to Chinese state-owned enterprise China Eastern Air Holding.
—   for the joint venture: the provision of single-aisle commercial aircraft landing gear maintenance, repair and overhaul services in China.










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 the 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 number M.8411 — Safran Group/China Eastern Air Holding, 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 T-446/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — CC v Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Errors in the management of the list of successful candidates — Non-contractual liability — Offers of further evidence — Material harm — Equal treatment — Distortion of the facts — Loss of an opportunity)
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, indemnification, job access, probationary period








C_2017195EN.01002601.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/26





Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — CC v Parliament
(Case T-446/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Errors in the management of the list of successful candidates - Non-contractual liability - Offers of further evidence - Material harm - Equal treatment - Distortion of the facts - Loss of an opportunity))
(2017/C 195/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: CC (represented by: G. Maximini and C. Hölzer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Despotopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV, EU:F:2016:165), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal, first, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the Council of the European Union by excluding the period from 16 February 2006 to 31 August 2007, and secondly, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the other institutions and bodies of the European Union using a different method from that which it used in relation to the Council;










2.


Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;










3.


Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal;










4.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Case C-535/16: Order of the Court of 27 April 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania)) — Michael Tibor Bachmann v FAER IFN SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 2(b) — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Notion of ‘consumer’ — Natural person having concluded an agreement for novation with a credit institution in order to meet repayment obligations to that institution in respect of credit obtained by a commercial company)
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, credit, credit institution, firm governed by commercial law, guarantee, natural person, unfair terms of contract








C_2017213EN.01001501.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/15





Order of the Court of 27 April 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania)) — Michael Tibor Bachmann v FAER IFN SA
(Case C-535/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Notion of ‘consumer’ - Natural person having concluded an agreement for novation with a credit institution in order to meet repayment obligations to that institution in respect of credit obtained by a commercial company))
(2017/C 213/17)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Michael Tibor Bachmann

Defendant: FAER IFN SA

Operative part of the order

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, following a novation agreement, has undertaken by contract to repay to a lending institution loans originally granted to a company for purposes inherent in that company’s business activity, where that natural person has no evident link with that company but acted in that way on the basis of his links, outside his trade, business or profession, with the person who controlled that company and also with the person who signed contracts ancillary to the original loan contracts (contracts of guarantee, contracts providing immovable property as security/mortgages).


(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case T-622/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Deere v EUIPO (EXHAUST-GARD) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark EXHAUST-GARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, chemical product, diesel fuel, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017195EN.01002002.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/20





Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Deere v EUIPO (EXHAUST-GARD)
(Case T-622/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark EXHAUST-GARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 195/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deere & Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by N. Weber and T. Heitmann, and subsequently by N. Weber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 (Case R 196/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EXHAUST-GARD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Deere & Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.