do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Decision No 1/2017 of the Joint Committee of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin of 16 May 2017 as regards the request of Ukraine to become a Contracting Party to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin [2017/1367]
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: European Union, Joint Committee
Subjects: Mediterranean region (EU), Ukraine, Union for the Mediterranean, accession to an agreement, international convention, originating product, preferential agreement, regional cooperation








L_2017191EN.01001101.xml










22.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 191/11








            DECISION No 1/2017 OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONAL CONVENTION ON PAN-EURO-MEDITERRANEAN PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN
         
of 16 May 2017
         
as regards the request of Ukraine to become a Contracting Party to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin [2017/1367]


THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin (1),

Whereas:







(1)


Article 5(1) of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin (‘the Convention’) provides that a third party may become a Contracting Party to the Convention provided that the candidate country or territory has a free trade agreement in force, providing for preferential rules of origin, with at least one of the Contracting Parties.












(2)


Ukraine submitted a written request for accession to the Convention on 12 September 2016.












(3)


Ukraine has a free trade agreement in force with several Contracting Parties to the Convention and therefore complies with the condition set out in Article 5(1) of the Convention to become a Contracting Party.












(4)


Article 4(3)(b) of the Convention provides that the Joint Committee is to adopt by decision invitations to third parties to accede to the Convention,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ukraine shall be invited to accede to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 16 May 2017.


For the Joint Committee


The Chair

Péter KOVÀCS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 54, 26.2.2013, p. 4.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017152EN.01000401.xml










16.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 May 2017
(2017/C 152/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0972 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,45 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4395 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84928 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6733 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0944 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3325 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,471 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,17 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2089 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5503 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9020 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4741 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4931 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5440 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5875 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5342 




KRW


South Korean won


1 225,57 




ZAR


South African rand


14,4818 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5629 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4332 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 591,66 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7489 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,463 




RUB


Russian rouble


61,7094 




THB


Thai baht


37,903 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4065 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5020 




INR


Indian rupee


70,2725 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-299/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000)
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, paints and varnishes, pneumatic machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004302.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/43





Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000)
(Case T-299/17)
(2017/C 231/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘1000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 531

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 in Case R 650/2016-4

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 respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.
Case T-85/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — AW v EUIPO — Pharma Mar (YLOELIS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark YLOELIS — Earlier EU word mark YONDELIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01001801.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/18





Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — AW v EUIPO — Pharma Mar (YLOELIS)
(Case T-85/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark YLOELIS - Earlier EU word mark YONDELIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 221/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alfa Wassermann SpA (AW) (Alanno, Italy), authorised to replace Alfa Wassermann Hungary Kft. (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pharma Mar, SA (Colmenar Viejo, Spain) (represented by: N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2014 (Case R 1100/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pharma Mar and Alfa Wassermann Hungary.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Alfa Wassermann SpA (AW) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Case T-107/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Power to alter decisions)
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01002001.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/20





Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT)
(Case T-107/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions))
(2017/C 221/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Airhole Facemasks, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada) (represented by: S. Barker, Solicitor, and A. Michaels, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: sindustrysurf, SL (Trapagaran, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 2547/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Airhole Facemasks and sindustrysurf.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2016 (Case R 2547/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Airhole Facemasks, Inc. and sindustrysurf, SL, and alters it to the effect that the appeal brought before EUIPO by sindustrysurf against the Cancellation Division’s decision of 30 July 2014 is dismissed;










2.


Orders Airhole Facemasks and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs incurred before the General Court;










3.


Orders sindustrysurf to pay the costs incurred by Airhole Facemasks before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










4.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.






(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2017/869 of 16 May 2017 appointing a member of the Court of Auditors
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, Hungary, appointment of members








L_2017131EN.01002201.xml










20.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 131/22








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2017/869
of 16 May 2017
         
appointing a member of the Court of Auditors


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,


Having regard to the proposal by Hungary,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The term of office of Mr Szabolcs FAZAKAS expired on 6 May 2016.












(2)


A new appointment should therefore be made,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Ms Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 September 2017 to 31 August 2023.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 16 May 2017.


For the Council


The President

L. GRECH
            





(1)  Opinion of 27 April 2017 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
Case C-247/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 16 May 2017 — Oikeusministeriö v Denis Raugevicius
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, enforcement of ruling, equal treatment, extradition, foreign national, freedom of movement, penalty, third country








C_2017239EN.01003001.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/30





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 16 May 2017 — Oikeusministeriö v Denis Raugevicius
(Case C-247/17)
(2017/C 239/37)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Oikeusministeriö

Defendant: Denis Raugevicius

Questions referred







1.


Are national provisions on extradition to be assessed with respect to the freedom of movement of nationals of another Member State in the same way regardless of whether the extradition request of a third State on the basis of an extradition convention concerns the enforcement of a custodial sentence or a prosecution as in the Petruhhin case? (1) Is it relevant that the person sought to be extradited, as well as being a citizen of the Union, is a national of the State which has made the request for extradition?










2.


Does a national law under which only its own nationals are not extradited outside the EU for the enforcement of a penalty unjustifiably disadvantage nationals of another Member State? Are the mechanisms of EU law by means of which an objective, acceptable as such, may be achieved in a less prejudicial manner applicable also in an enforcement situation? How is a request for extradition to be answered in a situation in which, such mechanisms being applied, the request is notified to another Member State which, however, does not, for example because of legal obstacles, adopt measures concerning its nationals?






(1)  Judgment of 6.9.2016, C-182/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630.
Case T-290/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Stavytskyi v Conseil
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, criminal proceedings, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_2017231EN.01004001.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/40





Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Stavytskyi v Conseil
(Case T-290/17)
(2017/C 231/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Belgium) (represented by: M. J. Grayston, Solicitor, Mes P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul 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 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 L 58, p. 1), in so far as these acts retain the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;










—


order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the listing legislation violates the principle of proportionality, as it allows for listing on the basis merely of being subject to criminal proceedings, and that consequently the contested acts have been acted on an illegal basis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment, as it did not have sufficiently solid factual basis for listing the applicant on the ground that he was subject to criminal proceedings by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public funds and assets.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons, as, in the contested acts, the Council gave an insufficient and stereotypical statement of reasons, as it merely copied the text found in the listing legislation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an incorrect legal basis, as the measures taken by the Council do not, in relation to the applicant, constitute foreign policy measures, but instead constitute international cooperation in criminal proceedings, which accordingly have been adopted on an incorrect legal basis.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 May 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union and its Member States, of the Protocol to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Mongolia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (09264/2016 — C8-0455/2016 — 2015/0113(NLE))
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: Croatia, Mongolia, cooperation agreement (EU), framework agreement, protocol to an agreement








C_2018307EN.01019101.xml










30.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 307/191






P8_TA(2017)0201
Protocol to the EU-Mongolia Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation (accession of Croatia) ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 May 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union and its Member States, of the Protocol to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Mongolia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (09264/2016 — C8-0455/2016 — 2015/0113(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 307/32)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (09264/2016),










—


having regard to the draft Protocol to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Mongolia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (08940/2016),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 207 and 209 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0455/2016),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0074/2017),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Mongolia.
Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2) — Modification of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) (Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19) and Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303))
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: The Member States
Subjects: Castile-Leon, Spain, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, economic cooperation, local authority, regional authority, regional cooperation, regional development








C_2017152EN.01000701.xml










16.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/7





Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2)
Modification of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)
(Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19) and Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303))
(2017/C 152/06)
I.1   Name and address of the EGTC


Registered name: Agrupación Europea de Cooperación Territorial DUERO – DOURO (DUERO-DOURO European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation)

Registered office: Plaza Egido s/n; Trabanca, Salamanca (37173), Spain
I.2   Duration of the addition:



Duration of the grouping
: undefined
I.3   First publication in the OJ: OJ/S S113 – 16.6.2009
I.4   Name and contact details of the new member:

Camarzana de Tera
Case T-293/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Fakro v Commission
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition law, complaint to the Commission, dominant position, rights of the defence








C_2017249EN.01002902.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/29






Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Fakro v Commission
(Case T-293/17)
(2017/C 249/45)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Fakro sp z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights by failing to take a position on the complaint brought before it by the applicant on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position by the VELUX group, notwithstanding the fact that it was formally called on to do so;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs, even in the event that the case does not proceed to judgment in view of the adoption by the Commission of a decision during the judicial proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 288 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 102 TFEU and 105 TFEU and with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The adoption, after three and a half years, of an initial, allegedly factual position in the procedure regarding the complaint lodged by the applicant does not constitute dealing with the case within a reasonable time. The Commission has not produced any evidence making it possible to determine that any action whatsoever was undertaken during the investigation procedure. Before adopting a decision, the Commission is required to carry out a thorough analysis of the matters of fact and of law put forward by the complainant. The proceedings initiated by the applicant constitute the only way in which it can safeguard its rights.
Case C-265/17 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13: United Parcel Service v European Commission
Date: 2017-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, cartel, competition policy, economic concentration, logistics, merger control, price agreement, rights of the defence, transport company








C_2017231EN.01002101.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/21





Appeal brought on 16 May 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13: United Parcel Service v European Commission
(Case C-265/17 P)
(2017/C 231/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, H. Leupold, A. Biolan, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment;










—


refer the proceedings back to the General Court, and










—


reserve the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1)


The Judgment errs in finding that the Commission was required to disclose to UPS the final version of its price concentration model before adopting the Decision.










2)


Even if the Commission’s failure to disclose the final version of the price concentration model to UPS before the adoption of the Decision could breach UPS’s rights of defence, the Judgment erred in its characterisation of the evidential character of the price concentration model and, consequently, in the legal test applied in determining that the Decision was to be annulled.










3)


Even if a breach of UPS’s rights of defence could arise in the circumstances, the Judgment erred in failing to address the Commission’s submissions that UPS’s plea was ineffective and that UPS could understand the price concentration model.










4)


In any event, the findings made in the Judgment could not justify the annulment of the Decision.