do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-519/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017424EN.01001701.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/17





Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-519/17 P)
(2017/C 424/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16, EU:T:2017:447;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and










—


reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)



(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal health, biotechnology, chemical industry, economic concentration, farming sector, holding company, merger control, multinational enterprise, pharmaceutical industry, public health








C_2017286EN.01000101.xml










30.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/1





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 286/01)
On 22 August 2017, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 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.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto, 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’).
Case C-523/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017424EN.01001801.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/18





Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-523/17 P)
(2017/C 424/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16, EU:T:2017:451;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and










—


reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)



(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).
Case T-591/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, Syria, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan, water supply








C_2017369EN.01003501.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/35





Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-591/17)
(2017/C 369/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement, comprising:






—


404 425,58 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;










—


all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.














—


In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:






—


all principal and interest for each instalment;










—


contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.














—


For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement.
Case T-588/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, Syria, claim, deadline for payment, drainage, interest, international loan, irrigation








C_2017369EN.01003202.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/32





Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-588/17)
(2017/C 369/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement, comprising:






—


2 184 271,58 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;










—


all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.














—


In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:






—


all principal and interest for each instalment;










—


contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.














—


For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default if its contractual obligations under Article 3.01 and 4.01 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement.
Case T-590/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, Syria, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan, water supply








C_2017369EN.01003401.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/34





Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-590/17)
(2017/C 369/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement, comprising:






—


726 942,81 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;










—


all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.














—


In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:






—


all principal and interest for each instalment;










—


contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.














—


For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement.
Case T-589/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, Syria, claim, deadline for payment, interest, international loan, road building








C_2017369EN.01003301.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/33





Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-589/17)
(2017/C 369/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:






—


for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement, comprising:






—


820 451,35 euro, being the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);










—


further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;










—


all applicable legal costs, charges and expenses arising in connection with the conclusion and execution of the Loan Agreement, including costs related to the present proceedings.














—


In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:






—


all principal and interest for each instalment;










—


contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.














—


For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement.
Case C-524/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017424EN.01001901.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/19





Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-524/17 P)
(2017/C 424/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16, EU:T:2017:448;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and










—


reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)



(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017286EN.01000201.xml










30.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 August 2017
(2017/C 286/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2048 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,86 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4393 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,92965 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5363 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1386 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2915 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,142 




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,32 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2676 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5968 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1470 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5111 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5037 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4268 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6535 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6283 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,80 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6323 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9467 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4155 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 085,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1409 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,485 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7954 




THB


Thai baht


39,963 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8106 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5204 




INR


Indian rupee


77,1340 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8576 — Balder/Varma/Serena) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, pension scheme, real estate business








C_2017286EN.01001001.xml










30.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8576 — Balder/Varma/Serena)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 286/07)






1.


On 23 August 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Fastighets AB Balder (‘Balder’, Sweden) and Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company (‘Varma’, Finland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Serena Properties AB (‘Serena’, Finland) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Balder: listed real estate company which owns, manages and develops residential and commercial properties and hotels in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland,
—   for Varma: mutual pension insurance company, owned by its client companies and self-employed persons, insured employees and owners of the guarantee capital. Varma notably invests in Finnish real estate companies,
—   for Serena: a real estate company active in the Finnish real estate market for commercial use and specialising in retail properties such as grocery stores and discounters.










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 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.8576 — Balder/Varma/Serena, 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-525/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017424EN.01001902.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/19





Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-525/17 P)
(2017/C 424/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16, EU:T:2017:449;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and










—


reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)



(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).