do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-340/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 9(1) — Article 11(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Direct action by the injured party against the insurer — Action brought by the employer, a public-law institution, statutory assignee of the rights of its employee, against the insurer of the vehicle involved — Subrogation)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, establishment, indemnification, insurance company, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, public institution, remuneration of work, staff, transport accident








C_2017300EN.01000601.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA
(Case C-340/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 9(1) - Article 11(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Direct action by the injured party against the insurer - Action brought by the employer, a public-law institution, statutory assignee of the rights of its employee, against the insurer of the vehicle involved - Subrogation))
(2017/C 300/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG

Defendant: Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read together with Article 11(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer, established in one Member State, which continued to pay the salary of its employee absent as the result of a road traffic accident and to which have passed the employee’s rights with regard to the company insuring the civil liability resulting from the vehicle involved in that accident, which is established in a second Member State, may, in the capacity of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 11(2), sue the insurance company before the courts of the first Member State, where a direct action is permitted.


(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Case T-203/17: Order of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — GY v Commission
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), professional experience








C_2017293EN.01004101.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/41





Order of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — GY v Commission
(Case T-203/17) (1)

(2017/C 293/53)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Judgment of the Court of 20 July 2017 in Case E-11/16 — Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen) (Article 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Rights of institutions responsible for benefits against liable third parties — Subrogation and direct rights)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, claim, damages, insurance company, national law, social security legislation, social-security benefit, trauma








C_2018001EN.01000801.xml










4.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/8





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 20 July 2017
in Case E-11/16
Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen)

(Article 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Rights of institutions responsible for benefits against liable third parties — Subrogation and direct rights)

(2018/C 1/10)
In Case E-11/16, Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 20 July 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Where an institution responsible for benefits has, by virtue of the legislation which it administers, a subrogated or direct right against a third party responsible for an injury sustained in another EEA State, Article 93(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 requires other EEA States to recognise such rights as provided for under the law of the EEA State to which that institution is subject.










2.


However, that subrogated or direct right cannot exceed the rights that the injured person has against the third party responsible for the injury under the national law of the EEA State where the injury occurred, including any applicable rules of private international law.










3.


Nevertheless, the fact that, under the law of the EEA State in which the injury occurred, necessary treatment has been provided without giving rise to any costs for the injured person himself does not preclude the institution responsible for providing benefits from claiming compensation from the third party for costs incurred due to such treatment.
Case T-395/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder) (European Union trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Windfinder — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Neologism — Insufficiently direct and specific connection with certain goods and services covered by the mark applied for — Power to alter decisions)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information service, meteorology, registered trade mark, software, sport, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01004302.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/43





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)
(Case T-395/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Windfinder - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Neologism - Insufficiently direct and specific connection with certain goods and services covered by the mark applied for - Power to alter decisions))
(2017/C 283/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: B. Schneider, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 (Case R 1206/2015-5), relating to the application for registration of the word sign Windfinder as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2016 (Case R 1206/2015-5) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign Windfinder for the goods and services at issue, with the exception of anemometers in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, and of meteorological information, meteorological forecast, meteorological information services and the supply of meteorological information in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement;










2.


Upholds the action brought by Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG before that Board of Appeal in accordance with the conditions set out at paragraph 1 of the operative part;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of Windfinder R&L’s action;










4.


Orders Windfinder R&L and EUIPO to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 343, 19.6.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017234EN.01000201.xml










20.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 July 2017
(2017/C 234/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1533 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88485 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5598 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0994 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3018 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,035 




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,42 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2127 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5670 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0576 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4532 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4540 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0059 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5640 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5773 




KRW


South Korean won


1 294,27 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8896 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7889 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4143 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 359,65 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9436 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,633 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,0915 




THB


Thai baht


38,751 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6432 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,1750 




INR


Indian rupee


74,1515 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-287/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Belgium — Export refunds — No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State — Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, export refund, principle of proportionality








C_2017293EN.01003001.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/30





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission
(Case T-287/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Export refunds - No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State - Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies - Proportionality))
(2017/C 293/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: initially J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, then M. Jacobs, L. Van den Broeck and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
Case T-644/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — ADR Center v Commission (Financial aid — General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 — Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ — Action for annulment — Enforceable decision — Article 299 TFEU — Powers of the author of the act — Principle of sound administration — Application for an order directing the Commission to pay the balance due under the grant agreements — Partial reclassification of the action — Arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Eligible costs)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, action programme, audit, damages, enforcement of ruling, financial aid, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, reimbursement of aid








C_2017293EN.01002901.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/29





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — ADR Center v Commission
(Case T-644/14) (1)

((Financial aid - General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 - Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ - Action for annulment - Enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Powers of the author of the act - Principle of sound administration - Application for an order directing the Commission to pay the balance due under the grant agreements - Partial reclassification of the action - Arbitration clause - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Eligible costs))
(2017/C 293/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ADR Center SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented: initially by L. Tantalo, and subsequently by A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Estrada de Solà and L. Cappelletti, and subsequently by J. Estrada de Solà and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision C(2014) 4485 final of the Commission of 27 June 2014 concerning the recovery of part of the financial contribution paid to the applicant under three grant agreements concluded in the context of the ‘Civil Justice’ specific programme and, second, based on Article 272 TFEU seeking an order directing the Commission to pay it the balance due to it under the three grant agreements in an amount of EUR 49 172,52 together with damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ADR Center SpA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs of that institution pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures, and to bear half of its own costs, including in relation to its costs pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by ADR Center, including half of the costs of the latter pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
Case C-439/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: flavouring, market approval, marketing standard, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2017347EN.01001001.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
(Case C-439/17)
(2017/C 347/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH

Defendant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Questions referred







1.


Is the first sentence of Article 7(7) of 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 (1) (hereinafter: ‘the directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components does not cover tobacco products which have a characterising flavour, within the meaning of the definition in Article 2(25) of the directive, on account of the flavourings contained in their components?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:
Is Article 7(14) to be interpreted as meaning that the transitional provision covers only the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour under the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the directive or — also — the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components under the first sentence of Article 7(7) of the directive?










3.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative or Question 2 is to be answered to the effect that Article 7(14) of the directive also covers the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components under the first sentence of Article 7(7) of the directive:
How are the expressions ‘tobacco products with a characterising flavour’ and ‘particular product category’ in Article 7(14) of the directive to be construed?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 127, p. 1.
Case T-460/17: Action brought on 20 July 2017 — Bopp v EUIPO (Representation of an equiangular octagon)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, analytical chemistry, legal aid, registered trade mark, teaching materials, testing, trade-mark law








C_2017300EN.01003801.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/38





Action brought on 20 July 2017 — Bopp v EUIPO (Representation of an equiangular octagon)
(Case T-460/17)
(2017/C 300/47)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: F. Pröckl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Sign (Representation of an equiangular octagon) — Application for registration No 11 005 196

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2017 in Case R 1954/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-143/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Decoupled direct aid in the claim years 2008 and 2009 — Failings in the control system — Assessment of control samples — Burden of proof — Aid for rural development in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León in the claim years 2009 and 2010 — On-the-spot checks — Key controls — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Castile-Leon, EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, development aid, financial control, principle of proportionality








C_2017293EN.01002902.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/29





Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-143/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Spain - Decoupled direct aid in the claim years 2008 and 2009 - Failings in the control system - Assessment of control samples - Burden of proof - Aid for rural development in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León in the claim years 2009 and 2010 - On-the-spot checks - Key controls - Proportionality))
(2017/C 293/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain following inquiry AA/2009/007/ES for the claim year 2009;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
Case T-244/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhía v Commission (Interim measures — Fishing vessel — Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization — Admissibility — Application for interim measures — Lack of interest)
Date: 2017-07-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, Portugal, admissibility, fishery management, fishing area, fishing permit, fishing vessel, sea fishing, ship's flag








C_2017293EN.01003601.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/36





Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhía v Commission
(Case T-244/17 R)
((Interim measures - Fishing vessel - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization - Admissibility - Application for interim measures - Lack of interest))
(2017/C 293/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: António Conde & Companhía, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Lewis and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures ordering the European Commission to abstain from exerting pressure on the Republic of Portugal to exclude the fishing vessel Calvão from the list of Portuguese-flagged vessels authorised to fish in the NAFO regulatory area.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.