do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-351/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l.
Date: 2017-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, carriage of passengers, public institution, public-private partnership, services contract, services of general interest, tendering








C_2017330EN.01000501.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l.
(Case C-351/17)
(2017/C 330/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Autolinee Toscane SpA

Respondent: Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l.

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation?










2.


May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’?










3.


In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation?










4.


If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
Case C-345/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 June 2017 — Sergejs Buivids
Date: 2017-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, data protection, data-processing law, dissemination of information, personal data, protection of privacy, recording








C_2017277EN.01002701.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 June 2017 — Sergejs Buivids
(Case C-345/17)
(2017/C 277/39)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Sergejs Buivids

Other party to the proceedings: Datu valsts inspekcija

Questions referred







1.


Do activities such as those at issue in the present case, that is to say, the recording, in a police station, of police officers carrying out procedural measures and publication of the video on the Internet site www.youtube.com, fall within the scope of Directive 95/46? (1)











2.


Must Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that those activities may be regarded as the processing of personal data for journalistic purposes, within the meaning of Article 9 of that directive?






(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 12 June 2017 in the case of Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp. v the Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) (Case E-5/17)
Date: 2017-06-12
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, market approval, patent law, pharmaceutical product








C_2017341EN.01000501.xml










12.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/5





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 12 June 2017 in the case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v the Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan)
(Case E-5/17)
(2017/C 341/06)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 12 June 2017 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 15 June 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v the Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) on the following question:
In the light of the fact that Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 have not been incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area, can a supplementary protection certificate under Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 be issued for a medicinal product if the period which has elapsed between the date on which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Economic Area is less than five years?
Council Decision of 12 June 2017 appointing the Vice-President of the Community Plant Variety Office
Date: 2017-06-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, appointment of members, vice-president of an institution








C_2017191EN.01001201.xml










16.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/12





COUNCIL DECISION
of 12 June 2017
appointing the Vice-President of the Community Plant Variety Office
(2017/C 191/02)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (1), and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


By Decision of 19 March 2012 (2), the Council renewed the term of office of Mr Carlos PEREIRA GODINHO as Vice-President of the Community Plant Variety Office (the ‘Office’).










(2)


The term of office of Mr Carlos PEREIRA GODINHO expired on 31 March 2017.










(3)


On 12 April 2017, after obtaining the opinion of the Administrative Council of the Office, the Commission proposed Mr Francesco MATTINA as a single candidate for the post of Vice-President of the Office,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1.   Mr Francesco MATTINA is hereby appointed Vice-President of the Community Plant Variety Office (the ‘Office’) for a period of 5 years.
2.   The term of office of Mr Francesco MATTINA shall run from the date on which he takes up his duties. This date shall be agreed between the President and the Administrative Council of the Office.
Article 2
The Chairperson of the Administrative Council of the Office shall be empowered to sign the contract of employment with Mr Francesco MATTINA.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 12 June 2017.


For the Council


The President

C. CAMILLERI




(1)  OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 19 March 2012 renewing the term of office of the Vice-President of the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ C 82, 21.3.2012, p. 6).
Case C-350/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana
Date: 2017-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, carriage of passengers, public institution, public-private partnership, services contract, services of general interest, tendering








C_2017330EN.01000401.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana
(Case C-350/17)
(2017/C 330/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l

Respondent: Regione Toscana

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation?










2.


May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’?










3.


In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation?










4.


If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
Case T-372/17: Action brought on 12 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)
Date: 2017-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017256EN.01003601.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/36





Action brought on 12 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)
(Case T-372/17)
(2017/C 256/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bee Fee Group LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black, red and white containing the word elements ‘LV POWER ENERGY DRINK’ — EU trade mark No 12 898 219

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 906/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and thus declare invalid the contested mark;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;










—


order the proprietor to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of legal certainty.
Case T-232/17: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission
Date: 2017-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electricity storage device, restriction on competition, vehicle parts, waste recycling








C_2017256EN.01004201.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/42





Order of the General Court of 12 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission
(Case T-232/17)
(2017/C 256/51)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.