do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-75/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona — Italy) — Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures — Directive 2008/52/EC — Directive 2013/11/EU — Article 3(2) — Applications by consumers to set an order aside in the context of payment order proceedings instituted by a credit institution — Right of access to the judicial system — National legislation providing for mandatory recourse to a mediation procedure — Obligation to be assisted by a lawyer — Condition for the admissibility of proceedings before the courts)
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, alternative dispute resolution, appeal, consumer protection, credit institution, lawyer








C_2017277EN.01001501.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/15





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona — Italy) — Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa
(Case C-75/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures - Directive 2008/52/EC - Directive 2013/11/EU - Article 3(2) - Applications by consumers to set an order aside in the context of payment order proceedings instituted by a credit institution - Right of access to the judicial system - National legislation providing for mandatory recourse to a mediation procedure - Obligation to be assisted by a lawyer - Condition for the admissibility of proceedings before the courts))
(2017/C 277/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Verona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli

Defendant: Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes recourse to a mediation procedure, in disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of that directive, as a condition for the admissibility of legal proceedings relating to those disputes, to the extent that such a requirement does not prevent the parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system.
On the other hand, that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, in the context of such mediation, consumers must be assisted by a lawyer and that they may withdraw from a mediation procedure only if they demonstrate the existence of a valid reason in support of that decision.


(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
Case C-366/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2017 — Jörg Scharnweber and Henning Kuhlmann v Société Air France SA
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification








C_2017318EN.01000501.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2017 — Jörg Scharnweber and Henning Kuhlmann v Société Air France SA
(Case C-366/17)
(2017/C 318/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jörg Scharnweber and Henning Kuhlmann

Defendant: Société Air France SA
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 19 July 2017.
Case C-610/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Online sharing platform — Sharing of protected files, without the consent of the rightholder)
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, computer piracy, copyright, information society








C_2017277EN.01000801.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/8





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV
(Case C-610/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Online sharing platform - Sharing of protected files, without the consent of the rightholder))
(2017/C 277/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stichting Brein

Defendants: Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as covering, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the making available and management, on the internet, of a sharing platform which, by means of indexation of metadata relating to protected works and the provision of a search engine, allows users of that platform to locate those works and to share them in the context of a peer-to-peer network.


(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Case T-95/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal Groupe (ROYAL & CAPORAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ROYAL & CAPORAL — Earlier EU word mark KAPORAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electro-magnetic equipment, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, office supplies, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2017249EN.01002501.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/25






Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal Groupe (ROYAL & CAPORAL)
(Case T-95/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ROYAL & CAPORAL - Earlier EU word mark KAPORAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 249/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Savas Aydin (Pantin, France) (represented by: F. Watrin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kaporal Groupe (Marseilles, France) (represented by: J. André, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2015 (Case R 867/2015-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Kaporal Groupe and Mr Aydin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Mr Savas Aydin to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
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: 2017-06-14
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_2017188EN.01000801.xml










14.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/8





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 188/08)

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) 3821


7 June 2017


1,2-dichloroethane
EC No 203-458-1
CAS No 107-06-2


BASF SE, Carl-Bosch-Str. 38, 67056 Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany


REACH/17/9/0


Industrial use of EDC as a recyclable solvent and extraction agent in a closed system for purification of 1,3,5-trioxane


22 November 2024


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.8515 — CPPIB/BPEA/Nord Anglia Education) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, educational institution, investment company, merger control








C_2017188EN.01002301.xml










14.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8515 — CPPIB/BPEA/Nord Anglia Education)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 188/15)






1.


On 6 June 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 Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (‘CPPIB’, Canada) and Baring Private Equity Asia (‘BPEA’, Singapore) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking Nord Anglia Education, Inc (‘Nord Anglia’, Hong Kong) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   CPPIB: professional investment management in real estate, public equities, private equities, infrastructure and fixed income instruments
—   BPEA: independent alternative asset management in real estate, private equities and growth capital
—   Nord Anglia: premium school operator active in China, Europe, the Middle East, the U.S. and Southeast Asia










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.8515 — CPPIB/BPEA/Nord Anglia Education, 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017188EN.01000201.xml










14.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 June 2017
(2017/C 188/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1217 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,43 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88075 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7443 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0850 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4540 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,147 




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1936 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5662 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9519 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4880 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4892 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7489 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5528 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5501 




KRW


South Korean won


1 265,98 




ZAR


South African rand


14,3297 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6245 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4085 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 904,08 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7812 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,510 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,8205 




THB


Thai baht


38,048 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7045 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,3188 




INR


Indian rupee


72,1930 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-392/17: Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, fraud against the EU, principle of subsidiarity








C_2017293EN.01003602.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/36





Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission
(Case T-392/17)
(2017/C 293/45)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: TE (represented by: J. Bartončík, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision to open an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of a basic principle of EU law — the principle of subsidiarity.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle ne bis in idem.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8507 — GENUI/Summit/Sycamore/Market Logic Software) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control








C_2017188EN.01002401.xml










14.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/24





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8507 — GENUI/Summit/Sycamore/Market Logic Software)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 188/16)






1.


On 7 June 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 Genui GmbH (‘GENUI’, Germany), Summit Partners L.P. (‘Summit’, USA) and Sycamore GmbH (‘Sycamore’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Market Logic Software AG (‘Market Logic Software’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for GENUI: an investment company that holds stakes in medium-sized companies in German-speaking countries,
—   for Summit: an international equity investment firm focused on investing in businesses in the sectors of technology, healthcare and life sciences, growth products and services to fund growth, recapitalisations and management buyouts,
—   for Sycamore: a private equity firm,
—   for Market Logic Software: a software company that develops and distributes marketing information systems.










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.8507 — GENUI/Summit/Sycamore/Market Logic Software, 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-422/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v TofuTown.com GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 78 and Annex VII, Part III — Decision 2010/791/EU — Definitions, designations and sales descriptions — ‘Milk’ and ‘milk products’ — Designations used for the promotion and marketing of purely plant-based products)
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, common organisation of markets, crop production, labelling, market approval, milk product








C_2017277EN.01001801.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/18





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v TofuTown.com GmbH
(Case C-422/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 78 and Annex VII, Part III - Decision 2010/791/EU - Definitions, designations and sales descriptions - ‘Milk’ and ‘milk products’ - Designations used for the promotion and marketing of purely plant-based products))
(2017/C 277/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Trier

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Defendant: TofuTown.com GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(2) and Annex VII, Part III 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 must be interpreted as precluding the term ‘milk’ and the designations reserved by that regulation exclusively for milk products from being used to designate a purely plant based product in marketing or advertising, even if those terms are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive terms indicating the plant origin of the product at issue, unless that product is listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2010/791/EU of 20 December 2010 listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.


(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
Case C-67/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(2)(a) — Scope — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Dissolution of the marriage — Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage)
Date: 2017-06-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: division of property, divorce, jurisdiction, married person, matrimonial law, personal property, real property, residence








C_2017249EN.01001501.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/15






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva
(Case C-67/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(2)(a) - Scope - Matters excluded - Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship - Dissolution of the marriage - Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage))
(2017/C 249/22)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Todor Iliev

Defendant: Blagovesta Ilieva

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, relating to the liquidation of property — acquired during marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State — after a divorce has taken place, does not come within the scope of that regulation but comes rather within the scope of matrimonial property regimes and, consequently, within the scope of the exclusions listed in Article 1(2)(a) of that regulation.


(1)  
            OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.