do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-365/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association française des entreprises v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Directive 2011/96/EU — Prevention of double taxation — Contribution of 3 % in addition to corporation tax)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, basis of tax assessment, corporation tax, double taxation, national law, parent company, subsidiary, tax law








C_2017239EN.01001802.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/18





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association française des entreprises v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
(Case C-365/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 2011/96/EU - Prevention of double taxation - Contribution of 3 % in addition to corporation tax))
(2017/C 239/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP), Axa SA, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin SCA, Danone SA, ENGIE SA, formerly GDF Suez, Eutelsat Communications SA, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE, Orange SA, Sanofi SA, Suez Environnement Company SA, Technip SA, Total SA, Vivendi SA, Eurazeo SA, Safran SA, Scor SE, Unibail-Rodamco SE, Zodiac Aerospace SA

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2014/86/EU of 8 July 2014, must be interpreted as precluding a tax measure laid down by the Member State of a parent company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing for the levy of a tax when the parent company distributes dividends and the basis of assessment of which tax is the amounts of the dividends distributed, including those coming from that company’s non-resident subsidiaries.


(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8427 — KKR/Telefónica/Telxius) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2017154EN.01000202.xml










17.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8427 — KKR/Telefónica/Telxius)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 154/04)
On 10 May 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 English 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 32017M8427. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8418 — Peter Cremer Holding/Hage/König Transportgesellschaft) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural equipment, animal nutrition, carriage of goods, carrier, economic concentration, goods and services, holding company, merger control, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2017154EN.01000102.xml










17.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8418 — Peter Cremer Holding/Hage/König Transportgesellschaft)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 154/02)
On 3 May 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 German language 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 32017M8418. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017154EN.01000301.xml










17.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

16 May 2017
(2017/C 154/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1059 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4394 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85868 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7215 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0958 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3918 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,420 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,54 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1984 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5478 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9330 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4920 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5058 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6143 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6090 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5457 




KRW


South Korean won


1 234,76 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5287 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6185 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4303 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 709,02 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7791 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,898 




RUB


Russian rouble


62,3000 




THB


Thai baht


38,187 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4316 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6886 




INR


Indian rupee


70,8505 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-337/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — European Commission implementing decision — Notification to the addressee — Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU Official Journal, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, implementing decision, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2017239EN.01001701.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/17





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
(Case C-337/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 239/21)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Case T-164/16: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES) (EU trade mark — Application for figurative EU trade mark THE TRAVEL EPISODES — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for alteration — Act not amenable to adoption by the Board of Appeal — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, blog, electronic publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel








C_2017231EN.01002301.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/23





Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)
(Case T-164/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for figurative EU trade mark THE TRAVEL EPISODES - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for alteration - Act not amenable to adoption by the Board of Appeal - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 231/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Piper Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Oster, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 1099/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign THE TRAVEL EPISODES as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Piper Verlag GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case T-481/16 RENV: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Assessment of the written test — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list — Possibility for a selection board to entrust the marking of the written tests to one of its members — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), legal profession, linguistics








C_2017231EN.01002501.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/25





Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission
(Case T-481/16 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Assessment of the written test - Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list - Possibility for a selection board to entrust the marking of the written tests to one of its members - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2017/C 231/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Eva Cuallado Martorell (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: C.M. Pinto Cañón, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/130/08, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), not to admit the applicant to take part in the oral tests and not to include her on the reserve list.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the decision of EPSO made on 14 September 2009 regarding the issue of the applicant’s admission to the oral tests in question.










2.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law in so far as it is directed against the decision of EPSO made on 23 July 2009 maintaining the eliminatory mark of 18/40 in final written test (c) and refusing to admit Ms Cuallado Martorell to the oral stage of the competition.










3.


Ms Cuallado Martorell and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs in relation to the appeal proceedings before the General Court.










4.


Ms Cuallado Martorell shall pay the costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal and before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010 (case initially registered with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-96/09, subsequently referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal, following an appeal, as Case F-96/09 RENV, and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Case T-583/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — PG v Frontex (Civil service — Temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Renewal procedure — Article 266 TFEU — Duty of care — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2017221EN.01002501.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/25





Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — PG v Frontex
(Case T-583/16)
((Civil service - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Renewal procedure - Article 266 TFEU - Duty of care - Non-contractual liability))
(2017/C 221/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PG (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 9 June 2015, taken by the authority in Frontex empowered to conclude contracts of employment, not to renew the applicant’s contract and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr PG to pay the costs.
Case T-305/17: Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Red Bull v EUIPO (Representation of a parallelogram composed of two fields in different colours)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004702.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/47





Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Red Bull v EUIPO (Representation of a parallelogram composed of two fields in different colours)
(Case T-305/17)
(2017/C 231/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a parallelogram composed of 2 fields in different colours) — Application for registration No 14 326 508

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2017 in Case R 2582/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-437/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element ‘deluxe’ — Refusal of registration by the examiner)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, film industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017239EN.01000601.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc.
(Case C-437/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘deluxe’ - Refusal of registration by the examiner))
(2017/C 239/07)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. (represented by: L. Gellman, advocate, and M. Esteve Sanz, abogada)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2015, Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe) (T-222/14, not published, EU:T:2015:364);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 June 2017 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017154EN.01002701.xml










17.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/27





Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 June 2017
(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))
(2017/C 154/08)
Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate.
Modified rates are indicated in bold.
Previous table published in OJ C 133, 27.4.2017, p. 2.


































From


To


AT


BE


BG


CY


CZ


DE


DK


EE


EL


ES


FI


FR


HR


HU


IE


IT


LT


LU


LV


MT


NL


PL


PT


RO


SE


SI


SK


UK




1.6.2017


…


-0,10 


-0,10 


0,76 


-0,10 


0,45 


-0,10 


0,12 


-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


0,70 



0,37 



-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


-0,10 


1,83 


-0,10 


1,10 


-0,36 


-0,10 


-0,10 


0,78 




1.5.2017


31.5.2017



-0,10 




-0,10 



0,76 



-0,10 



0,45 



-0,10 




0,12 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




0,70 



0,44 



-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 




-0,10 



1,83 



-0,10 



1,10 


-0,36 



-0,10 




-0,10 



0,78 




1.4.2017


30.4.2017


-0,08 


-0,08 


0,76 


-0,08 


0,45 


-0,08 


0,16 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 



0,83 




0,44 



-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


-0,08 


1,83 


-0,08 


1,10 


-0,36 


-0,08 


-0,08 


0,78 




1.3.2017


31.3.2017



-0,08 




-0,08 



0,76 



-0,08 



0,45 



-0,08 



0,16 



-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 



1,05 



0,53 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 




-0,08 



1,83 



-0,08 



1,10 


-0,36 



-0,08 




-0,08 



0,78 




1.1.2017


28.2.2017



-0,07 




-0,07 




0,76 




-0,07 




0,45 




-0,07 




0,16 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,05 




0,75 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




-0,07 




1,83 




-0,07 




1,10 




-0,36 




-0,07 




-0,07 




0,78
Case T-355/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MULTI FRUITS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01002201.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/22





Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)
(Case T-355/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MULTI FRUITS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 221/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 1043/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MULTI FRUITS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case T-301/17: Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, paints and varnishes, pneumatic machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004501.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/45





Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000)
(Case T-301/17)
(2017/C 231/56)
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 ‘2000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 069

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 651/2016-4

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.