do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-479/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — PO v EEAS
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, anti-discriminatory measure, equal treatment, monthly pay, parental allowance, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017347EN.01003501.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/35





Action brought on 2 August 2017 — PO v EEAS
(Case T-479/17)
(2017/C 347/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PO (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the calculation note of 10 November 2016 which was sent to him by the EEAS human resources department as well as, to the extent necessary, the email of 24 October 2016 by which that department indicated to him that he is not eligible for reimbursement of the education costs of his two children above the ceiling set out in Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials since he is being reassigned;










—


annul, to the extent necessary, the reply expressly rejecting his complaint of 16 May 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging illegality inasmuch as the calculation note of 10 November 2016 (‘the contested individual decision’) as well as the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based and the Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Annex X thereto.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging illegality inasmuch as the notes on which the contested individual decision is based breach the Guidelines.










3.


Third plea in law, based on the illegality of the contested individual decision on the following grounds:






—


infringement of the precautionary principle and of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, and infringement of the principle of sound administration as well as that of acquired rights;










—


infringement of the right to family and the right to education;










—


infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination;










—


failure to carry out a balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle that the measure adopted must be proportionate.
Case T-486/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (DIETOX)
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, foodstuff, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017318EN.01002001.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/20





Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (DIETOX)
(Case T-486/17)
(2017/C 318/26)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Foodterapia, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, 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 ‘DIETOX’ — Application for registration No 13 072 798

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 1611/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8545 — Bain Capital Investors/REIFF Tyre) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, pneumatic tyre, retail selling, vehicle parts, wholesale selling








C_2017251EN.01001301.xml










2.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8545 — Bain Capital Investors/REIFF Tyre)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 251/06)






1.


On 25 July 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 Bain Capital Investors, L.L.C. (‘Bain Capital’ of the USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the tyre business of the Reiff group (‘Reiff’ of Germany) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bain Capital: private equity investment firm active across most industries,
—   for REIFF: distributor of replacement tyres on the wholesale and retail level predominantly in Germany. It also supplies wheel rims, complete wheels and ancillary services and operates a truck tyre re-treading business.










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.8545 — Bain Capital Investors/REIFF Tyre, 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-473/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Repsol Butano, S.A. v Administración del Estado
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: assessment of prices, competition policy, consumer protection, gas, gas supply, maximum price, price of energy, principle of proportionality








C_2017382EN.01003101.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/31





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Repsol Butano, S.A. v Administración del Estado
(Case C-473/17)
(2017/C 382/37)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Repsol Butano, S.A.

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Questions referred







1.


In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, (1) is a measure setting a maximum price for cylinders of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the following circumstances occur?






—


the measure is adopted as a general measure in relation to all consumers and for an indefinite period ‘while the conditions of competition on this market are not considered to be sufficient’,










—


the measure has already been in force for more than 28 years,










—


the measure may contribute to freezing the situation of limited competition by impeding the entry of new operators.














2.


In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, is a measure for the compulsory home delivery of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users or residents in areas that are difficult to access, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the circumstances listed in the previous question occur?






(1)  Judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility and Others (C-265/08, EU:C:2010:205).
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 August 2017 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2017251EN.01000101.xml










2.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/1





Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 August 2017
Euro exchange rates (2)

1 August 2017
(2017/C 251/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1812 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,53 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4369 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89440 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5563 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1414 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3343 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,132 




HUF


Hungarian forint


303,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2563 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5596 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1602 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4813 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4737 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2284 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5813 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6042 




KRW


South Korean won


1 325,50 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6922 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9371 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4090 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 738,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0620 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,508 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,1750 




THB


Thai baht


39,322 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6880 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0023 




INR


Indian rupee


75,7145 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8567 — APG/Portfolio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: business management, consultancy, economic concentration, merger control, pension scheme, transport infrastructure, urban infrastructure








C_2017251EN.01001201.xml










2.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8567 — APG/Portfolio)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 251/05)






1.


On 20 July 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 APG Asset Management N.V. (‘APG’, of the Netherlands) indirectly acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control over a portfolio of forty-eight European infrastructure companies (the ‘Portfolio’), by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for APG: is the asset management business unit of APG GROEP N.V., a collective pensions scheme provider. APG carries out the executive consultancy, asset management, pension administration and communication for pension funds in the field of collective pensions, for around 4,5 million Dutch citizens,
—   for the Portfolio: consisting of DIF’s interest in forty eight companies/projects active in the infrastructure sector in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK.










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.8567 — APG/Portfolio, 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.
Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2018 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, action programme, innovation, invitation to tender








C_2017251EN.01000401.xml










2.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/4





Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2018 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
(2017/C 251/03)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2018 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).
The Commission has adopted the ERC Work Programme 2018 (https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018_2020/erc/h2020-wp18-erc_en.pdf) by Decision C(2017) 5307 of 2 August 2017.
Proposals are invited for these calls. The ERC Work Programme 2018, including deadlines and budgets, is available through the Participant Portal website along with information on the modalities of the calls and related activities and the information for applicants on how to submit proposals:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html
Case T-489/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper)
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, liqueur, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2017309EN.01004002.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/40





Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper)
(Case T-489/17)
(2017/C 309/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH (Daun, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bottle stopper) — Application for registration No 15 024 987

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1374/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-592/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Serra Noguera and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017374EN.01004202.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/42





Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Serra Noguera and Others v SRB
(Case T-592/17)
(2017/C 374/64)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Juan Carlos Serra Noguera (Sant Jordi de ses Salines, Spain) and 56 other applicants (represented by: R. García-Bragado Acín, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


acknowledge the filing of this action and take note of this APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular, as well as the valuation on which it is based;










—


Given that it is practically impossible to reverse the implementation of that decision, declare that SRB is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the applicants, which corresponds to the amount of their investment or the amount determined at the time of enforcement of the judgment.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
Case T-481/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v SRB
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appeal, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial instrument, ownership, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2017318EN.01001901.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/19





Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v SRB
(Case T-481/17)
(2017/C 318/25)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno (Madrid, Spain) and SFL — Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez and A. Muñoz Aranguren, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v SRB.
Case C-465/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen
Date: 2017-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: emergency medical treatment, first aid, non-profit organisation, paramedical profession, services contract, transport of patients








C_2017330EN.01000902.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen
(Case C-465/17)
(2017/C 330/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S

Defendant: Stadt Solingen

Other parties to the proceedings: Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Regionalverband Bergisch Land e.V., Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V., Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Solingen e.V.

Questions referred







1.


Do the care and treatment of emergency patients in an ambulance by a medical technician/paramedic and the care and treatment of patients in a patient transport ambulance by a paramedic/medical assistant constitute ‘civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) which come under CPV (Common Procurement Vocabulary) codes 75252000-7 (Rescue services) and 85143000-3 (Ambulance services)?










2.


Can Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU be understood as meaning that ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ include, in particular, aid organisations that are recognised under national law as civil defence and civil protection organisations?










3.


Are ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU those whose mission is fulfilled in the achievement of tasks in the public good, which do not operate with a view to making a profit and which reinvest any profits in order to realise the mission of the organisation?










4.


Is the transport of a patient in an ambulance while care is provided by a paramedic/medical assistant (so-called qualified patient transport) a ‘patient transport ambulance service’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU, which is not covered by the exception and to which Directive 2014/24/EU applies?






(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).