do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2017172EN.01000201.xml










31.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/2





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 172/02)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 3439


24 May 2017


Chromium trioxide
EC No 215-607-8
CAS No 1333-82-0


Rimex Metals (UK) Ltd, 17 Aden Road, Ponders End, Enfield, EN3 7SU, United Kingdom


REACH/17/12/0


Use as an oxidising and hardening agent in the manufacture of coloured stainless steel


21 September 2027


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8475 — SoftBank Group/Fortress Investment Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2017172EN.01000301.xml










31.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8475 — SoftBank Group/Fortress Investment Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 172/03)






1.


On 19 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 undertaking SoftBank Group Corp. (‘SoftBank’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Fortress Investment Group LLC (‘Fortress’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   SoftBank: listed Japanese internet company which provides a comprehensive range of telecommunication services and products, primarily in Japan and the USA. It currently operates in five segments: Japanese Telecommunications; Sprint Corporation (a US telecommunications carrier); Yahoo Japan (internet advertising, e-commerce and membership services); Distribution (mobile devices, and sale of PC software and peripherals in Japan); and ARM (a UK-based semiconductor company).
—   Fortress: investment management firm based in New York, USA.










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.8475 — SoftBank Group/Fortress Investment Group, 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 T-637/15: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2017 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE — Earlier EU word mark VIÑA SOL — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to distinctive character — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2017231EN.01002201.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/22





Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2017 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)
(Case T-637/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE - Earlier EU word mark VIÑA SOL - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to distinctive character - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 231/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Coral Gables, Florida, United States) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 356/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 September 2015 (Case R 356/2015-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP;










3.


Orders Miguel Torres, SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case C-324/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, criminal proceedings, damages, judicial inquiry, judicial investigation, proof








C_2017256EN.01001601.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
(Case C-324/17)
(2017/C 256/14)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Questions referred







1.


Are national legislation and case-law consistent with Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, in so far as they preclude a challenge, either directly as an appeal against a court decision or indirectly by means of a separate claim for damages, to the substantive grounds of a court decision issuing a European investigation order for a search on residential and business premises and the seizure of specific items, and allowing examination of a witness?










2.


Does Article 14(2) of the directive grant, in an immediate and direct manner, to a concerned party the right to challenge a court decision issuing a European investigation order, even where such a procedural step is not provided for by national law?










3.


Is the person against whom a criminal charge was brought, in the light of Article 14(2) in connection with Article 6(1)(a) and Article 1(4) of the directive, a concerned party, within the meaning of Article 14(4), if the measures for collection of evidence are directed at third party?










4.


Is the person who occupies the property in which the search and seizure was carried out or the person who is to be examined as a witness a concerned party within the meaning of Article 14(4) in connection with Article 14(2) of the directive?






(1)  OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1.
Case T-346/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Hotelbeds Spain v EUIPO — Guidigo Europe (Guidego what to do next)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, database, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2017239EN.01006801.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/68





Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Hotelbeds Spain v EUIPO — Guidigo Europe (Guidego what to do next)
(Case T-346/17)
(2017/C 239/78)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Hotelbeds Spain, SL (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guidigo Europe SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the words elements ‘Guidego what to do next’ — Application for registration No 12 944 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 449/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant the European Union trade mark application No 12 944 898, in classes 39, 41 and 43.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-17/16: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2017 — Ms v Commission (Action for damages — Decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ — Contractual liability — No arbitration clause — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: arbitration clause, communications profession, contractual liability, damages








C_2017256EN.01002702.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/27





Order of the General Court of 31 May 2017 — Ms v Commission
(Case T-17/16) (1)

((Action for damages - Decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ - Contractual liability - No arbitration clause - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2017/C 256/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ms (represented by: initially by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, C. Ehrbar and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation from the Commission for the damage caused following its decision of 10 April 2013 by which it decided to put an end to the applicant’s collaboration with the ‘Team Europe’ network of conference speakers.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


MS is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention Area of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)’ (COM(2017) 128 final – 2017/0056 COD)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Pacific Ocean, catch by species, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing controls, international convention, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2017288EN.01012901.xml










31.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/129





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention Area of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)’
(COM(2017) 128 final – 2017/0056 COD)
(2017/C 288/18)






Consultation


European Parliament, 03/04/2017
Council of the European Union, 10/04/2017




Legal basis


Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted at plenary


31/05/2017




Plenary session No


526




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


181/0/1




Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 526th plenary session of 31 May and 1 June 2017 (meeting of 31 May 2017), by 181 votes to none with 1 abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 31 May 2017.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017172EN.01000101.xml










31.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 May 2017
(2017/C 172/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1173 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,97 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4396 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86793 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7688 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0903 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4398 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,467 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1760 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5660 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9738 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4992 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5048 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7070 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5799 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5484 




KRW


South Korean won


1 255,99 




ZAR


South African rand


14,6891 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6597 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4195 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 886,35 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7829 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,634 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,2618 




THB


Thai baht


38,133 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6509 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7350 




INR


Indian rupee


72,2415 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of the calendar year 2017’ (COM(2017) 150 final – 2017/0068 COD)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EAGF, agricultural situation, aid to agriculture, financial control, management audit, single payment scheme, structural adjustment




C_2017288EN.01013001.xml










31.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/130





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct payments in respect of the calendar year 2017’
(COM(2017) 150 final – 2017/0068 COD)
(2017/C 288/19)






Referral


European Parliament, 06/04/2017




Legal basis


Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted at plenary


31/05/2017




Plenary session No


526




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


177/0/0




Since the Committee had already set out its views on the contents of the proposal in question in opinion CESE 2942/2013, adopted on 25 May 2013 (*1), it decided at its 526th plenary session, held on 31 May and 1 June 2017 (meeting of 31 May 2017), by 177 votes to none with no abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 31 May 2017.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS




(*1)  EESC opinion on the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fixing an adjustment rate to direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar year 2013, COM(2013) 159 final — 2013/0087 (COD) (OJ C 271, 19.9.2013, p. 143).
Case T-339/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (sevenoak)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, photographic industry, radio equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017239EN.01006001.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/60





Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (sevenoak)
(Case T-339/17)
(2017/C 239/72)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SEVENOAK’ — Application for registration No 13 521 125

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 1326/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reject the contested decision;










—


grant the EUTM application No 13 521 125 ‘SEVENOAK’ for all the goods included in the application;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-228/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2017 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Decision to take no further action — Refusal by the European Commission to continue to examine the applicant’s complaint — Lack of aid at the end of the preliminary examination stage — Purely confirmatory decision — Legal conditions for the withdrawal of a decision to take no further action)
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, cost price, electrical energy, electricity supply, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2017249EN.01000901.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2017 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v European Commission
(Case C-228/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Decision to take no further action - Refusal by the European Commission to continue to examine the applicant’s complaint - Lack of aid at the end of the preliminary examination stage - Purely confirmatory decision - Legal conditions for the withdrawal of a decision to take no further action))
(2017/C 249/12)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, avocat, A. Oikonomou, E. Salaka, C. Synodinos and C. Tagaras, dikigoroi, and by D. Waelbroeck, avocat,)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 February 2016, DEI v Commission (T-639/14, not published, EU:T:2016:77);










2.


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










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case C-325/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Windrush Aka LLP against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-336/15: Windrush Aka LLP v EUIPO
Date: 2017-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, copyright, music, record, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017347EN.01000201.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/2





Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Windrush Aka LLP against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-336/15: Windrush Aka LLP v EUIPO
(Case C-325/17 P)
(2017/C 347/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Windrush Aka LLP (represented by: S. Britton, Solicitor, S. Malynicz QC, S. Tregear, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Jerry Dammers

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the judgment of the General Court in Case T-366/15 dated 22 March 2017;










—


order the EUIPO and Mr Jerry Dammers (the EUTM proprietor) to pay their own costs and pay those of the appellant





Pleas in law and main arguments







1)


First, the General Court distorted the evidence and incorrectly assessed the facts, and its decision contains a substantive inaccuracy in the findings attributable to the documents submitted to it.










2)


Secondly, the General Court breached Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (OJ 2015, L 105, p. 1), by declining to hold a hearing in the light of the abandonment by the EUTM proprietor of material parts of its purported evidence of use of the contested EUTM following the hearing.










3)


Thirdly, the General Court wrongly held that the appellant raised a new plea for the first time at the hearing.










4)


Fourthly, the General Court failed to appreciate the effect in law of an assignment of a right to a name i.e. that the assignment gives no further right to the assignor (i.e., the EUTM proprietor) to grant or refuse consent to the use of the name (i.e., the contested EUTM), with the result that there is no further consent under Union law following the date of the assignment.