do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-512/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Green Source Poland v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project — Undertaking responsible for project implementation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, biofuel, financial aid, innovation, new technology, operational programme, regional aid








C_2017195EN.01001701.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/17





Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Green Source Poland v Commission
(Case T-512/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project - Undertaking responsible for project implementation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 195/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by M. Clausen and B.-R. Killmann, and subsequently by B.-R. Killmann and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2289 final of 7 April 2014 refusing to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Purchase and implementation of innovative manufacturing technology of biocomponents to produce biofuels’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural interventions under the ‘Convergence’ objective in Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Case T-744/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Meta Group v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded within the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Grant agreements concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Recovery of sums paid — Balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the applicant — Eligible costs — Contractual liability)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, competitiveness, damages, financial aid, innovation, interest








C_2017195EN.01001702.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/17





Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
(Case T-744/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded within the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Grant agreements concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - Recovery of sums paid - Balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the applicant - Eligible costs - Contractual liability))
(2017/C 195/23)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini and A. Formica, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a ruling that the Commission failed to fulfil its financial obligations resulting from several grant agreements which it concluded with the applicant under the Sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013), a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully in offsetting the amounts claimed by the applicant, an order for payment by the Commission of the sums owed to the applicant under those grant agreements, together with default interest and monetary revaluation, and compensation in respect of the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Meta Group Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
Case C-239/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — RFA International, LP v European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of ferrosilicon originating in Russia — Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron, originating product, semi-metal








C_2017213EN.01000601.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — RFA International, LP v European Commission
(Case C-239/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of ferrosilicon originating in Russia - Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid))
(2017/C 213/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: RFA International, LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, advokat, E. Borovikov, avocat, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, P. Němečková and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Case C-33/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by A Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 148(d) — Exemption — Supply of services to meet the direct needs of vessels used for navigation on the high seas — Loading and unloading of cargo by a subcontractor on behalf of an intermediary)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, cargo vessel, load, maritime shipping, provision of services, subcontracting, tax exemption, trade intermediary








C_2017213EN.01001202.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/12





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by A Oy
(Case C-33/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(d) - Exemption - Supply of services to meet the direct needs of vessels used for navigation on the high seas - Loading and unloading of cargo by a subcontractor on behalf of an intermediary))
(2017/C 213/13)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A Oy

Intervening party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 148(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that loading and unloading of cargo are services supplied for the direct needs of the cargo of the vessels referred to in Article 148(a) thereof.










2.


Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, not only supplies of services concerning loading or unloading cargo onto or from a vessel covered by Article 148(a) of that directive which take place at the end of the commercial chain of such a service may be exempt, but also supplies of services made at an earlier stage, such as services supplied by a subcontractor to an economic operator which then re-invoices them to a freight forwarder or transporter and, second, services for loading and unloading of cargo supplied to the holders of that cargo, such as the exporter or importer may also be exempt.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EFTA Surveillance Authority notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2017 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017139EN.01003001.xml










4.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/30





EFTA Surveillance Authority notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 January 2017
(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (1))
(2017/C 139/07)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by the Authority’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.1.2017 –


6,18 


-0,50 


1,29 






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1.
Case T-264/17: Action brought on 4 May 2017 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, heating, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01003501.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/35





Action brought on 4 May 2017 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)
(Case T-264/17)
(2017/C 221/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Uponor Innovation AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swep International AB (Landskrona, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SMATRIX’ — Application for registration No 12 540 431

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 in Case R 236/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


order SWEP International to compensate the Applicant for the costs before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-25/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Haw Par v EUIPO — Cosmowell (GELENKGOLD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GELENKGOLD — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a tiger — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Force of res judicata — Enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark acquired through use — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Series of marks)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017195EN.01002201.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/22





Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Haw Par v EUIPO — Cosmowell (GELENKGOLD)
(Case T-25/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GELENKGOLD - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a tiger - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Force of res judicata - Enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark acquired through use - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Series of marks))
(2017/C 195/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: R.-D. Härer, C. Schultze, J. Ossing, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Gehweiler and C. Brockmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: J. Sachs and C. Sachs, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1907/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Haw Par and Cosmowell.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Haw Par Corp. Ltd to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Case C-29/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund — Germany) — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 27 — Lis pendens — Court first seised — Point 1 of Article 30 — Concept of ‘document instituting the proceedings’ or ‘equivalent document’ — Application for proceedings to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, evidence of facts on which a subsequent action could be based)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, expert's report ordered by a court, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, private international law, proof, seizure of goods








C_2017213EN.01001201.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/12





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund — Germany) — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA
(Case C-29/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 27 - Lis pendens - Court first seised - Point 1 of Article 30 - Concept of ‘document instituting the proceedings’ or ‘equivalent document’ - Application for proceedings to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, evidence of facts on which a subsequent action could be based))
(2017/C 213/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stralsund

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HanseYachts AG

Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) and point 1 of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning, in cases of lis pendens, that the date on which a procedure for a measure of inquiry prior to any legal proceedings was commenced cannot constitute the date on which, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 30 of that regulation, a court called upon to rule on a substantive application which was brought in the same Member State following the result of that measure was ‘deemed to be seised’.


(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Case T-341/16: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — De Masi v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Request for access on the basis of the inter-institutional cooperation by virtue of Article 230 TFEU — Documents concerning the work of the ‘Code of conduct (Business Taxation)’ group instituted by the Council — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, access to information, interinstitutional relations (EU), parliamentary question, right to information








C_2017221EN.01002802.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/28





Order of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — De Masi v Commission
(Case T-341/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Request for access on the basis of the inter-institutional cooperation by virtue of Article 230 TFEU - Documents concerning the work of the ‘Code of conduct (Business Taxation)’ group instituted by the Council - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 221/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fischer-Lescano, professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 8 June 2016, responding to the request of the President of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect (TAXE2) for full access to the documents of the ‘Code of conduct (Business Taxation)’ group.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Mr Fabio De Masi shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
Case C-13/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 7(f) — Personal data — Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data — Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ — Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim — Obligation on the controller to grant such a request — No such obligation)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, data protection, disclosure of information, personal data, transport accident








C_2017213EN.01001101.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/11





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’
(Case C-13/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 7(f) - Personal data - Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data - Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ - Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim - Obligation on the controller to grant such a request - No such obligation))
(2017/C 213/10)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde

Defendant: Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not imposing the obligation to disclose personal data to a third party in order to enable him to bring an action for damages before a civil court for harm caused by the person concerned by the protection of that data. However, Article 7(f) of that directive does not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law.


(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case C-653/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Absence of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal pay, equal treatment, judge, remuneration of work








C_2017249EN.01001401.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/14






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě
(Case C-653/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings - Absence of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
(2017/C 249/20)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jitka Svobodová

Defendant: Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě

In the presence of: Česká republika — Ministerstvo spravedlnosti ČR

Re:

The application for a preliminary ruling brought by the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic), by decision of 2 December 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  
            OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 May 2017 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2017139EN.01000101.xml










4.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/1





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 May 2017
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 May 2017
(2017/C 139/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0919 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4372 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84440 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6273 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0812 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3878 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,871 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1913 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5485 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,8603 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4615 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4990 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4967 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5768 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5229 




KRW


South Korean won


1 235,52 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5730 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5267 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4493 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 528,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7159 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,583 




RUB


Russian rouble


62,5464 




THB


Thai baht


37,654 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4424 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5365 




INR


Indian rupee


70,0540 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.