do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1011 of 24 April 2015 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors and Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 (OJ L 162, 27.6.2015)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, drug traffic, export monitoring, psychotropic substance, surveillance concerning imports, third country, trade licence








L_2017125EN.01007501.xml










18.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/75







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1011 of 24 April 2015 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors and Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 162 of 27 June 2015
)


On page 15, point (i) of the second subparagraph of Article 3(9):
for:


                  ‘the date of expiry of validity where a term of validity has been fixed in accordance with Article 3(6) of this Regulation or in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004;’,

read:


                  ‘the date of expiry of validity where a term of validity has been fixed in accordance with Article 3(7) of this Regulation or in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004;’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017155EN.01000301.xml










18.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 May 2017
(2017/C 155/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1117 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,82 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4403 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85745 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7573 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0923 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3708 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,435 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,42 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1867 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5584 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9472 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5014 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5136 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6573 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6130 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5500 




KRW


South Korean won


1 244,79 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5533 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6552 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4313 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 798,95 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8059 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,247 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,0276 




THB


Thai baht


38,370 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4446 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7537 




INR


Indian rupee


71,2610 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-278/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Susanne Meyer and Others 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.01003501.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/35





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Susanne Meyer and Others v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-278/17)
(2017/C 239/44)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Susanne Meyer, Sophie Meyer, Jan Meyer

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-816/16 RENV: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — FK (*) v Commission
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract




C_2017249EN.01004902.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/49






Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — FK (*1) v Commission
(Case T-816/16 RENV) (1)

(2017/C 249/67)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  
            OJ C 319, 20.10.2012 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-87/12).
Case C-279/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Thomas Kiehl 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.01003601.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/36





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Thomas Kiehl v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-279/17)
(2017/C 239/45)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thomas Kiehl

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-617/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 97(1) — International jurisdiction — Action for infringement brought against an undertaking with its seat in a third country — Second-tier subsidiary with its seat in the Member State of the court seised — Definition of ‘establishment’)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foreign enterprise, nationality of legal persons, parent company, registered trade mark, subsidiary, trade-mark law








C_2017239EN.01000602.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV
(Case C-617/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 97(1) - International jurisdiction - Action for infringement brought against an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Second-tier subsidiary with its seat in the Member State of the court seised - Definition of ‘establishment’))
(2017/C 239/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S

Defendant: Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in a Member State, of a parent body that has no seat in the European Union is an ‘establishment’, within the meaning of that provision, of that parent body if the subsidiary is a centre of operations which, in the Member State where it is located, has a certain real and stable presence from which commercial activity is pursued, and has the appearance of permanency to the outside world, such as an extension of the parent body.


(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case C-271/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, imprisonment, legal process








C_2017277EN.01002402.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek
(Case C-271/17)
(2017/C 277/35)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

Questions referred







1.


Are proceedings






—


in which the court in the issuing Member State decides to combine separate custodial sentences which had previously been imposed on the person concerned by a final judgment into one single custodial sentence, and/or to change an aggregate custodial sentence which had previously been imposed on the person concerned by a final judgment and










—


in which that court no longer examines the question of guilt,




such as the proceedings which led to the cumulative sentence of 25 March 2014, a ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in the introductory subparagraph of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? (1)











2.


Can the executing judicial authority:






—


in a case where the requested person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision,










—


but where the issuing judicial authority has not, either in the EAW [European Arrest Warrant] or in the supplementary information requested pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, provided information about the applicability of one or more of the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in accordance with the wording of one or more of the categories of point 3 of paragraph (d) of the EAW form,




for those very reasons conclude that none of the conditions of Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has been satisfied and for those very reasons refuse to execute the EAW?










3.


Are appeal proceedings






—


in which there has been an examination of the merits and










—


which resulted in the passing of a (new) sentence on the person concerned and/or the confirmation of the sentence handed down at first instance,










—


where the EAW concerns the execution of that sentence,




the ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case T-163/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret.service.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark secret.service. — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, data protection, documentation, information storage, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01002002.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/20





Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret.service.)
(Case T-163/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark secret.service. - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 221/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 1820/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign secret.service. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case C-99/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 4 — Practice of the legal profession — Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) — Router for RPVA access — Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State — Discriminatory measure)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer network, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, lawyer, professional society, right of establishment








C_2017239EN.01001202.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/12





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
(Case C-99/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 77/249/EEC - Article 4 - Practice of the legal profession - Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) - Router for RPVA access - Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State - Discriminatory measure))
(2017/C 239/16)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jean-Philippe Lahorgue

Defendants: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

Intervening party: Ministère public

Operative part of the judgment

The refusal, on the part of the competent authorities of a Member State, to issue a router for access to the private virtual network for lawyers to a lawyer duly registered at a Bar of another Member State, for the sole reason that that lawyer is not registered at a Bar of the first Member State, in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services, in situations where the obligation to work in conjunction with another lawyer is not imposed by law, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 4 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, read in the light of Article 56 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 57 TFEU. It is for the national court to determine whether such a refusal, in the light of the context in which it is put forward, genuinely serves the objectives of consumer protection and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the resulting restrictions do not appear to be disproportionate in regard to those objectives.


(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
Case C-270/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, application of EU law, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation








C_2017277EN.01002401.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas
(Case C-270/17)
(2017/C 277/34)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Tadas Tupikas

Question referred

Are appeal proceedings






—


in which there has been an examination of the merits and










—


which resulted in the passing of a (new) sentence on the person concerned and/or the confirmation of the sentence handed down at first instance,










—


where the EAW [European Arrest Warrant] concerns the execution of that sentence,




the ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? (1)



(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case C-150/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Debt owed to a company of which the Romanian State is the majority shareholder by a company of which that State is the sole shareholder — Transfer in lieu of payment — Definition of ‘State aid’ — Obligation to notify the European Commission)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, debt, public sector, restriction on competition, shareholder, shareholding








C_2017239EN.01001401.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/14





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA
(Case C-150/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Debt owed to a company of which the Romanian State is the majority shareholder by a company of which that State is the sole shareholder - Transfer in lieu of payment - Definition of ‘State aid’ - Obligation to notify the European Commission))
(2017/C 239/18)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Defendant: Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the decision of a company of which a Member State is the main shareholder to accept, in order to extinguish a debt, a transfer in lieu of payment of an asset which is the property of another company of which that Member State is the only shareholder and to pay a sum corresponding to the difference between the estimated value of that asset and the amount of that debt is liable to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU if:






—


that decision constitutes an advantage granted directly or indirectly by means of State resources and is imputable to the State,










—


the beneficiary undertaking has not obtained facilities comparable to a private creditor, and










—


that decision is liable to affect trade between the Member States and distort competition.




It is for the referring court to ascertain whether those conditions are met.










2.


If a national court classifies as State aid the decision of a company of which a Member State is the majority shareholder to accept a transfer in lieu of payment of an asset owned by another company of which that Member State is the sole shareholder, in order to extinguish a debt, and to refund a sum corresponding to the difference between the estimated value of that asset and the amount of the debt, the authorities of that Member State are required to notify that aid to the Commission before it is put into effect, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU.






(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.