do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-166/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Panzeri v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, claim, debt








C_2017221EN.01002101.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/21





Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Panzeri v Parliament
(Case T-166/16) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid))
(2017/C 221/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d'Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, A. Caiola, G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the General Secretariat of the Parliament of 11 February 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 83 764,34 and of the debit note relating thereto of the same date.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Pier Antonio Panzeri to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case C-281/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Thomas Schmidt v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017239EN.01003702.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/37





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Thomas Schmidt v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-281/17)
(2017/C 239/47)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thomas Schmidt

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/858 of 18 May 2017 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the ninth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, intervention buying, invitation to tender, minimum price, purchase price, skimmed milk powder, tendering








L_2017128EN.01001901.xml










19.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 128/19








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/858
of 18 May 2017
         
on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the ninth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.












(2)


In the light of the tenders received for the ninth partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should not be fixed.












(3)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the ninth partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 16 May 2017, a minimum selling price has not been fixed.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 May 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General


Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).
Case T-375/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01002301.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/23





Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)
(Case T-375/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 221/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sabre GLBL, Inc. (Southlake, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and S. Crabbe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 (Case R 1742/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign INSTASITE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sabre GLBL, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Case C-284/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Simone Künnecke and Others v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017283EN.01002001.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Simone Künnecke and Others v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-284/17)
(2017/C 283/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Simone Künnecke, Thomas Küther, Antonia Künnecke, Moritz Künnecke

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: Is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-285/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Marta Gentile and Marcel Gentile v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017283EN.01002002.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Marta Gentile and Marcel Gentile v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-285/17)
(2017/C 283/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Marta Gentile, Marcel Gentile

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: Is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-283/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Herbert Blesgen v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017283EN.01001901.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Herbert Blesgen v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-283/17)
(2017/C 283/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Herbert Blesgen

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: Is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-170/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — RW v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Officials — Requirement to take leave and compulsory retirement — Retirement age — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Application for a stay of execution — Fumus boni juris — Urgency — Balance of interests)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, rest period, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017231EN.01002601.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/26





Order of the President of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — RW v Commission
(Case T-170/17 R)
((Interim measures - Civil Service - Officials - Requirement to take leave and compulsory retirement - Retirement age - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Application for a stay of execution - Fumus boni juris - Urgency - Balance of interests))
(2017/C 231/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RW (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 placing the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and compulsorily retiring him with effect from 1 June 2017.

Operative part of the order







1.


The execution of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 placing the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and compulsorily retiring him with effect from 1 June 2017 is stayed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8301 — GE/ATI/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: alloy, economic concentration, industrial manufacturing, merger control, metallurgical industry, titanium








C_2017155EN.01000801.xml










18.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8301 — GE/ATI/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 155/06)






1.


On 5 May 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings General Electric Company (‘GE’, USA) and Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (‘ATI’, USA) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the NewCo (USA) by way of a purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for GE: global, diversified manufacturing, technology and services company.
—   for ATI: worldwide specialty materials and components producer including titanium and titanium alloys, nickel-based alloys and specialty steels, precision forgings, castings and machined components, zirconium and related alloys.
—   for NewCo/JV: development of a novel titanium alloy reduction process and subsequent commercializion of titanium alloy powders as well as titanium novel alloys.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8301 — GE/ATI/JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-202/15: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso v H3G SpA
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, enforcement of ruling, liquidation, proof, tax law, tax relief








C_2017283EN.01002801.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/28





Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso v H3G SpA
(Case C-202/15) (1)

(2017/C 283/38)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Call for expressions of interest for the position of member of the Management Board of the European Food safety Authority — Prolongation of deadline for submission of applications (OJ C 92, 24.3.2017)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, board of directors, recruitment








C_2017155EN.01000601.xml










18.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/6





Call for expressions of interest for the position of member of the Management Board of the European Food safety Authority
Prolongation of deadline for submission of applications
(Official Journal of the European Union C 92 of 24 March 2017)
(2017/C 155/04)
The deadline for submission of applications for the call for expressions of interest for the position of member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority of 24 March 2017 has been prolonged until 16 June 2017, 12.00 (noon), Brussels time.
Joined Cases C-583/16 and C-584/16: Order of the President of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC (C-583/16), Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC (C-584/16) v Enedis, SA, in the presence of: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, price of energy, purchase price, solar energy








C_2017283EN.01002901.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/29





Order of the President of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC (C-583/16), Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC (C-584/16) v Enedis, SA, in the presence of: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA
(Joined Cases C-583/16 and C-584/16) (1)

(2017/C 283/42)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.