do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653 of 8 March 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) by laying down regulatory technical standards with regard to the presentation, content, review and revision of key information documents and the conditions for fulfilling the requirement to provide such documents (OJ L 100, 12.4.2017)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, disclosure of information, financial services, regulation of investments




L_2017120EN.01003101.xml










11.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 120/31







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653 of 8 March 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) by laying down regulatory technical standards with regard to the presentation, content, review and revision of key information documents and the conditions for fulfilling the requirement to provide such documents

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 100 of 12 April 2017
)


On page 17, Annex II, point 13, the formula is replaced by the following:


                  ‘
                  


                  ’
               

on page 17, Annex II, point 17, the formula is replaced by the following:


                  ‘
                  


                  ’
               

on page 28, Annex IV, point 13(d) is replaced by the following:







‘(d)


Calculate the return for each contract by summing returns from selected periods and correcting these returns to ensure that the expected return measured from the simulated return's distribution is as below





where E*[r
bootstrapped
] is the new simulated mean.’.
Case C-44/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Dyson Ltd v Commission (Appeal — Directive 2010/30/EU — Indication of energy consumption by labelling and standard product information — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners — Energy efficiency — Measurement method — Limits of delegated powers — Distortion of the evidence — Duty of the General Court to state reasons)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, delegation of power, energy consumption, energy efficiency, household electrical appliance, labelling, marketing standard, metrology, product designation








C_2017239EN.01001002.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/10





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Dyson Ltd v Commission
(Case C-44/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication of energy consumption by labelling and standard product information - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners - Energy efficiency - Measurement method - Limits of delegated powers - Distortion of the evidence - Duty of the General Court to state reasons))
(2017/C 239/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Dyson Ltd (represented by: E. Batchelor and M. Healy, Solicitors, F. Carlin, Barrister, and A. Patsa, Advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and E. White, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 November 2015, Dyson v Commission (T-544/13, EU:T:2015:836), in so far as it rejected the first part of the first plea in law and the third plea in law put forward at first instance;










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the first part of the first plea in law and the third plea in law put forward at first instance;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
Case C-302/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(c) — Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Contract for carriage concluded through an online travel agent — Air carrier having informed the travel agent in good time of a change to the scheduled time for the flight — Travel agent having communicated that information to a passenger by email 10 days before the flight)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, contract of carriage, electronic commerce, indemnification, sales representative, traveller








C_2017239EN.01001601.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/16





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
(Case C-302/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c) - Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Contract for carriage concluded through an online travel agent - Air carrier having informed the travel agent in good time of a change to the scheduled time for the flight - Travel agent having communicated that information to a passenger by email 10 days before the flight))
(2017/C 239/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman

Defendant: Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier is required to pay the compensation specified in those provisions in the case where a flight was cancelled and that information was not communicated to the passenger at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, including in the case where the air carrier, at least two weeks before that time, communicated that information to the travel agent via whom the contract for carriage had been entered into with the passenger concerned and the passenger had not been informed of that cancellation by that agent within that period.


(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Case T-282/17: Action brought on 11 May 2017 — UI (*) v Council
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, competition (EU), confidentiality, probationary period, protection of privacy, recruitment, secretarial staff, staff assessment




C_2017277EN.01004601.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/46





Action brought on 11 May 2017 —  UI (*1) v Council
(Case T-282/17)
(2017/C 277/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant:
 UI (*1) (represented by: J. Diaz Cordova, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Order the defendant to establish him to the post of AST/SC 2 in the General Secretariat of the Council (DG A3).





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant essentially calls into question the legality of the procedures which, the applicant maintains, have led to the wrongful failure to establish him in the post concerned. The applicant makes particular reference to the drawing up by the defendant of an additional document which, the applicant alleges, should not be taken into account in his evaluation, having been submitted long after the end of his probationary period. The applicant alleges that the defendant breached certain fundamental rights, including the right to private life, the confidentiality of communications and the right to submit complaints, when evaluating the applicant’s case.


(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU Member State, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2017146EN.01000701.xml










11.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/7





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2017/C 146/07)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


27.2.2017




Duration


27.2.2017 till 30.6.2017




Member State


European Union (all Member States)




Stock or Group of stocks


RED/N3M.




Species


Redfish (Sebastes spp.)




Zone


NAFO 3M




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


07/TQ127






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-304/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, right to work, rights of the defence








C_2017213EN.01002702.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/27





Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council
(Case T-304/15) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))
(2017/C 213/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: G. Étienne and N. Rouam, subsequently by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and finally by: S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), insofar as the applicant’s name has been entered in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdukarim.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority under Article 21(7) of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, nursing staff, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2017146EN.01000801.xml










11.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/8





Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority under Article 21(7) of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement
(Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications)
(2017/C 146/08)
Article 21(7) of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications), foresees that the EFTA States shall notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) of the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions they adopt with regard to the issuing of evidence of formal qualifications in the fields covered by Chapter III of the Act.
The Authority has the task to publish an appropriate communication indicating the titles adopted by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway for evidence of formal qualifications and, where appropriate, the body which issues the evidence of formal qualifications, the certificate which accompanies it and the corresponding professional title referred to in Annex V to the Act, points 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 5.2.2, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.4.2, 5.5.2, 5.6.2 and 5.7.1 respectively.
Since Norway has notified changes to titles listed, the Authority publishes the present communication in accordance with Article 21(7) of the Act.

Evidence of formal qualifications: Nurses responsible for general care

Norway has notified the following changes of nurse responsible for general care already listed (Annex V, point 5.2.2, to Directive 2005/36/EC):







Country


Evidence of formal qualifications


Body awarding the evidence of qualifications




Norge


Vitnemål for fullført grad bachelor i sykepleie


Universitet og Høgskole
Case C-36/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Posnania Investment SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Article 14(1) — Taxable transactions — Meaning of ‘supply of goods for consideration’ — Transfer to the State or to a local authority of immovable property in order to settle a tax debt — Not included)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, real property, supply, tax collection, tax debt write-off, transfer of property








C_2017239EN.01001001.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/10





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Posnania Investment SA
(Case C-36/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 14(1) - Taxable transactions - Meaning of ‘supply of goods for consideration’ - Transfer to the State or to a local authority of immovable property in order to settle a tax debt - Not included))
(2017/C 239/12)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Posnania Investment SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of ownership of immovable property by a person subject to value added tax, for the benefit of the State Treasury or a local authority of a Member State, occurring, as in the main proceedings, in payment of tax arrears, does not constitute a supply of goods for consideration that is subject to value added tax.


(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Russia, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, piping, tube








C_2017146EN.01000901.xml










11.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/9





Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2017/C 146/09)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel


Russia
Turkey


Anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 78/2013 of 17 January 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey (OJ L 27, 29.1.2013, p. 1).


30.1.2018






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-376/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — KK v EASME (Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Call for proposals in respect of the 2014-2015 work programme — Programme to support innovation within SMEs — EASME decision declaring a proposal ineligible — ‘Single submission’ rule — Evaluation review procedure — E-portal for filing proposals temporarily inaccessible — Error of assessment — Infringement of the procedural rules — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, action programme, executive agency, indemnification, innovation, invitation to tender, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2017213EN.01002801.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/28





Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — KK v EASME
(Case T-376/15) (1)

((Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Call for proposals in respect of the 2014-2015 work programme - Programme to support innovation within SMEs - EASME decision declaring a proposal ineligible - ‘Single submission’ rule - Evaluation review procedure - E-portal for filing proposals temporarily inaccessible - Error of assessment - Infringement of the procedural rules - Non-contractual liability))
(2017/C 213/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KK (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) (represented by: A. Pallares Allueva and E. Fierro Sedano, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EASME of 15 June 2015 rejecting the proposal submitted by the applicant in response to the Call for proposals and related activities under the 2014-15 work programmes under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) and under the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-18) complementing Horizon 2020 (OJ 2013 C 361, p. 9) and, in addition, seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that rejection.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders KK to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Case T-279/17: Action brought on 11 May 2017 — Hermann Bock v EUIPO (Push and Ready)
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, medical device, metal furniture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017213EN.01003701.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/37





Action brought on 11 May 2017 — Hermann Bock v EUIPO (Push and Ready)
(Case T-279/17)
(2017/C 213/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hermann Bock GmbH (Verl, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen and V. Schoene, 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 ‘Push and Ready’ — Application for registration No 14 758 205

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2017 in Case R 1279/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, which it received on 1 March 2017, by which the Board of Appeal confirmed that figurative mark No 014758205 was not eligible for registration, and remit the case back to EUIPO for re-examination.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8270 — EDF/CDC/RTE) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy grid, energy industry, investment company, merger control








C_2017146EN.01000101.xml










11.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8270 — EDF/CDC/RTE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 146/01)
On 24 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8270. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.