do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-227/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, customs regulations, medical device, specification of tariff heading








C_2017249EN.01001901.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss
(Case C-227/17)
(2017/C 249/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Medtronic GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss

Question referred

Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 (1) of 6 October 2015 to be interpreted as meaning that spinal fixation systems (2) as described in more detail in the order fall under subheading 9021 90 90?


(1)  
            OJ 2015 L 285, p. 1.

(2)  Wirbelsäulenfixationssysteme der Marke CD Horizon SOLERA Spinal System.
Case C-226/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Brigitte Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01001701.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Brigitte Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-226/17)
(2017/C 231/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brigitte Wittmann

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 T-264/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Gameart v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations — Documents drawn up by a Member State — Request for access to documents made to the Member State — Request forwarded to the Commission — Refusal of access — Competence of the Commission — Document originating from an institution — Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, access to EU information, infringement procedure (EU), powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2017195EN.01001801.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/18





Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Gameart v Commission
(Case T-264/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations - Documents drawn up by a Member State - Request for access to documents made to the Member State - Request forwarded to the Commission - Refusal of access - Competence of the Commission - Document originating from an institution - Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001))
(2017/C 195/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Gameart sp. z o.o. (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, A. Buchet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Kamejsza and M. Pawlicka, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by J.-B. Laignelot, K. Pleśniak and E. Rebasti, and subsequently by J.-B. Laignelot and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 February 2015 in so far as it refused the request for access to documents drawn up by the Republic of Poland, a request which was forwarded to it by the Republic of Poland on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 February 2015 in so far as it refused a request for access to documents drawn up by the Republic of Poland, a request which was forwarded to it by the Republic of Poland on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Republic of Poland, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017134EN.01000101.xml










28.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 April 2017
(2017/C 134/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0881 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,27 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4387 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84420 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6244 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0820 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3367 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,937 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,03 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2216 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5288 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8797 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4576 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4783 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4672 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5832 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5205 




KRW


South Korean won


1 234,33 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5361 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5024 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4880 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 486,96 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7311 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,564 




RUB


Russian rouble


62,0780 




THB


Thai baht


37,670 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4387 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6615 




INR


Indian rupee


69,7660 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-253/17: Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows)
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, waste recycling








C_2017195EN.01004502.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/45





Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows)
(Case T-253/17)
(2017/C 195/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Gemany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and N. Ebbecke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Halston Properties, s. r. o. GmbH (Bratislava, Slovakia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a circle with two arrows) — EU trade mark No 298 273

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2017 in Case R 1357/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


in the event that the other party decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to bear its own costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-228/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Reinhard Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017231EN.01001801.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Reinhard Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-228/17)
(2017/C 231/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Reinhard Wittmann

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: 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?






(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 T-580/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Azoulay and Others v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Refusal to reimburse education costs — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, education grant, equal treatment, family benefit, remuneration of work, right to justice, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2017195EN.01002701.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/27





Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Azoulay and Others v Parliament
(Case T-580/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Refusal to reimburse education costs - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration))
(2017/C 195/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Irit Azoulay (Brussels, Belgium), Andrew Boreham (Wansin-Hannut, Belgium), Mirja Bouchard (Villers-la-Ville, Belgium) and Darren Neville (Ohain, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the individual decisions of the Parliament of 24 April 2015 refusing to grant education allowances for the year 2014/2015 and, so far as necessary, annulment of the individual decisions of the Parliament of 17 and 19 November 2015 partially rejecting the applicants’ complaints of 20 July 2015.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Irit Azoulay, Mr Andrew Boreham, Ms Mirja Bouchard and Mr Darren Neville to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-9/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Special Report No 4/2017 — ‘Protecting the EU budget from irregular spending: The Commission made increasing use of preventive measures and financial corrections in Cohesion during the 2007-2013 period’
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU budget, EU control, EU expenditure, EU financing, EU investment, budgetary control, economic and social cohesion, financial control, financial management, financing of the EU budget








C_2017134EN.01000301.xml










28.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/3





Special Report No 4/2017
‘Protecting the EU budget from irregular spending: The Commission made increasing use of preventive measures and financial corrections in Cohesion during the 2007-2013 period’
(2017/C 134/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 4/2017 ‘Protecting the EU budget from irregular spending: The Commission made increasing use of preventive measures and financial corrections in Cohesion during the 2007-2013 period’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-252/17: Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical engineering, electronic equipment, insurance, registered trade mark, satellite communications, software, trade-mark law, vehicle parts, vocational training








C_2017195EN.01004501.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/45





Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
(Case T-252/17)
(2017/C 195/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Simply. Connected.’ — Application for registration No 14 814 032

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2017 in Case R 947/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the cost of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-251/17: Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical engineering, electronic equipment, insurance, registered trade mark, satellite communications, software, trade-mark law, vehicle parts, vocational training








C_2017195EN.01004401.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/44





Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
(Case T-251/17)
(2017/C 195/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Simply. Connected.’ — Application for registration No 14 814 057

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 in Case R 948/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the cost of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-588/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — HN v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Reform of the Staff Regulations — New career rules and rules for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 — Officials of grade AD 12 — Exercise of particular responsibilities — Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Promotion year 2014 — Request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ — Lack of response from the Appointing Authority — Promotion year 2015 — Fresh request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ or ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ — Rejected by the Appointing Authority — Confirmatory nature of the refusal of categorisation in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ — Requirements related to the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, occupational status, pay scale, promotion, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017195EN.01002801.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/28





Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — HN v Commission
(Case T-588/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Reform of the Staff Regulations - New career rules and rules for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 - Officials of grade AD 12 - Exercise of particular responsibilities - Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Promotion year 2014 - Request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ - Lack of response from the Appointing Authority - Promotion year 2015 - Fresh request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ or ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ - Rejected by the Appointing Authority - Confirmatory nature of the refusal of categorisation in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ - Requirements related to the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 195/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HN (represented by: F. Sciaudone and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Ehrbar and A-C. Simon, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking in particular the annulment of ‘the decision rejecting the [applicant’s] request to be regarded as exercising particular responsibilities giving rise to his categorisation in the type of post [of] “Adviser or equivalent” under Article 30(3) of Annex XIII of the [new] Staff Regulations’ and Decision SEC(2013) 691 of 18 December 2013, entitled “Communication to the Commission amending the Rules governing the composition of the Members” Cabinets and the Spokespersons’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr HN to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-18/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016)..