do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-289/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus (Estonia) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS v Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2017249EN.01002001.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus (Estonia) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS v Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov
(Case C-289/17)
(2017/C 249/31)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Maakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS

Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

Questions referred







1.1.


Must Article 17(a) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that all the information listed in Article 17(a) of the Regulation must be clearly stated in or together with the document instituting the proceedings, the equivalent document or any summons to a court hearing? Specifically, is certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order under Articles 3(1)(b), 6(1)(c) and 17(a) of the regulation excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution to which to respond but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 17(a)?










1.2.


Must Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that, if the proceedings in the Member State of origin do not meet the procedural requirements as set out in Articles 17 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, for such non-compliance to be cured all the information listed in Article 18(1)(b) must have been notified to the debtor in due time in or together with the judgment? Specifically, is the issue of a European Enforcement Order excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution with which a challenge must be lodged but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 18(1)(b)?






(1)  
            OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8410 — Zen-Noh/LDC/Amaggi/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural production, agro-industry, economic concentration, merger control, soya bean, wholesale trade








C_2017157EN.01000102.xml










19.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8410 — Zen-Noh/LDC/Amaggi/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 157/02)
On 16 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 32017M8410. 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.8261 — Lanxess/Chemtura) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017157EN.01000201.xml










19.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8261 — Lanxess/Chemtura)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 157/03)
On 31 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in 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 32017M8261. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017157EN.01000301.xml










19.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 May 2017
(2017/C 157/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1129 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,05 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4414 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85363 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7655 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0874 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4113 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,632 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,69 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2232 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5683 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0461 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4957 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5183 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6615 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6057 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5491 




KRW


South Korean won


1 260,82 




ZAR


South African rand


15,0561 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6698 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4540 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 986,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8273 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,648 




RUB


Russian rouble


64,5335 




THB


Thai baht


38,389 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,4888 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2750 




INR


Indian rupee


72,3908 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-199/16: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family migration, foreign national, illegal migration, removal, return migration, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2017283EN.01002803.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/28





Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga
(Case C-199/16) (1)

(2017/C 283/40)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case T-311/17: Action brought on 19 May 2017 — Stips v Commission
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, reassignment, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2017231EN.01004902.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/49





Action brought on 19 May 2017 — Stips v Commission
(Case T-311/17)
(2017/C 231/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Adolf Stips (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule,






—


principally, that the decision of the AECE of 19 August 2016 not to reclassify the applicant in grade AD 13 in the 2013 reclassification procedure is annulled;










—


in the alternative, that the Commission is ordered to make good in full the harm, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, suffered by the applicant;










—


in any event, that the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the Commission ignored the grounds for the judgment of 19 July 2016, Stips v Commission (F-131/15, EU:F:2016:154) and executed that judgment in bad faith, thus undermining the force of res judicata given absolute effect by the Civil Service Tribunal.
Winding-up proceedings — Decision to start winding-up proceedings in respect of ING pojišťovna, a.s., v likvidaci (Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2017157EN.01001001.xml










19.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/10





Winding-up proceedings
Decision to start winding-up proceedings in respect of ING pojišťovna, a.s., v likvidaci
(Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
(2017/C 157/08)






Insurance undertaking







ING pojišťovna, a.s., v likvidaci,




Id. No 257 03 838,




address: Nádražní 344/25, 150 00 Praha 5 — Smíchov, Czech Republic








Date, entry into force and nature of decision


Resolution of Česká národní banka of 12 April 2017 reference number 2017/053163/CNB/570, came into force on 29 April 2017, in connection with Board of directors’ decision to start winding-up proceedings of 19 May 2015




Competent authorities







Česká národní banka,




Id. No 481 36 450,




address: Na Příkopě 28, 115 03 Praha 1 — Staré Město








Supervisory authority







Česká národní banka,




Id. No 481 36 450




address: Na Příkopě 28, 115 03 Praha 1 — Staré Město








Administrator appointed







Ing. Lukáš Vlašaný, address: Vančurova 2904, 390 01 Tábor




Email: pojistovna@vlasany.cz








Applicable law


Czech Republic, Section 123 Insurance Act 277/2009 Coll.
Case C-287/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, commercial transaction, debt, legal expenses, payment








C_2017269EN.01000302.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.
(Case C-287/17)
(2017/C 269/05)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Česká pojišťovna a.s.

Defendant: WCZ, spol. s r.o.

Question referred

Must Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating late payment in commercial transactions be interpreted as requiring the court to award a successful applicant in a dispute concerning the recovery of a debt under a commercial transaction defined in Article 3 or 4 of that directive the sum of EUR 40 (or the equivalent in national currency) as well as compensation for costs of the court proceedings, including compensation for costs of a reminder to the defendant before the bringing of the action, in the amount laid down by the procedural provisions of the Member State?


(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
Case C-288/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Fédération des fabricants de cigares and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
Date: 2017-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, freedom of expression, marketing standard, ownership, preparation for market, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, tobacco industry, trade mark








C_2017256EN.01001201.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Fédération des fabricants de cigares and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
(Case C-288/17)
(2017/C 256/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Fédération des fabricants de cigares, Coprova, E-Labo France, Smakq développement, Société nationale d’exploitation industrielle des tabacs et allumettes (SEITA), British American Tobacco France

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Interveners: Société J. Cortès France, Scandinavian Tobacco Group France, Villiger France

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13(1) and (3) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 (1) be interpreted as prohibiting the use, on unit packets, outside packaging and tobacco products, of any brand name calling to mind certain qualities, however well-known it is?










2.


Depending on the interpretation to be given to Article 13(1) and (3) of the directive, do those provisions, in so far as they apply to names and trade marks, comply with the right to property, freedom of expression, the freedom to conduct a business and the principles of proportionality and legal certainty?










3.


If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, under what conditions can a Member State, without infringing the right to property, freedom of expression, the freedom to conduct a business and the principle of proportionality, avail itself of the option open to it under Article 24(2) of the directive in order to require manufacturers and importers to have plain, standardised unit packets and outside packaging?






(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).