do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 8 September 2017 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska (ECB/2017/27)
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Slovakia, accountant, auditing, central bank, euro area








C_2017310EN.01000101.xml










19.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/1





RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 8 September 2017
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska
(ECB/2017/27)
(2017/C 310/01)
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of Národná banka Slovenska’s current external auditors, Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s r.o., ended after the audit for the financial year 2016. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2017.










(3)


Národná banka Slovenska has selected Deloitte Audit s.r.o. as its external auditors for the financial years 2017 to 2020, with an option to extend the mandate to the financial years 2021 to 2023,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Deloitte Audit s.r.o. should be appointed as the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska for the financial years 2017 to 2020, with an option to extend the mandate to the financial years 2021 to 2023.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 8 September 2017.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
Case T-620/17: Action brought on 08 September 2017 – Teollisuuden Voima v Commission
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, terms for aid








C_2017402EN.01004301.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/43





Action brought on 08 September 2017 – Teollisuuden Voima v Commission
(Case T-620/17)
(2017/C 402/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (Eurajoki, Finland) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, Y. Utzschneider, K. Struckmann and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1021 of 10 January 2017 on State aid SA.44727 2016/C (ex 2016/N) which France is planning to implement in favour of the Areva Group (1);










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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








1.


First plea in law, alleging that that the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, due to the excessive redactions of the published version of the contested decision that prevent the applicant from ascertaining the reasons for it and the Court from carrying out its review.












2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning the restoration of the Areva Group’s long-term viability.






—


The applicant refers in this regard to the Commission Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, which require that a restructuring plan restore the long-term viability of the beneficiary within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions (2).
















3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors in the assessment of the proposed measures to limit distortions of competition in the main market in which the Areva Group will be active after restructuring.












4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in making the State aid approval subject to inappropriate and insufficient conditions.












5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in finding the State aid compatible with the internal market, in view of the fact that the proposed restructuring plan does not provide sufficient guarantees that Areva will be able to deliver on the timely completion of the OL3 Project, thus running contrary to certain other EU Treaty objectives which should have been taken in account when examining the compatibility of the State aid.






(1)  OJ 2017 L 155, p. 23.

(2)  OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1, point 47.
Case T-572/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GOURMET — Prior EU figurative mark ORIGINE GOURMET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2968/95)
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017357EN.01001002.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/10





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO
(Case T-572/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GOURMET - Prior EU figurative mark ORIGINE GOURMET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2968/95))
(2017/C 357/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pierre-André Rouard (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Rouard and Aldi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.






(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8566 — Moog Singapore/SIAEC/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, air transport, economic concentration, maintenance, merger control








C_2017297EN.01000101.xml










8.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8566 — Moog Singapore/SIAEC/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 297/01)
On 16 August 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8566. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017297EN.01000201.xml










8.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 September 2017
(2017/C 297/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1971 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,34 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4392 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91403 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5263 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1412 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2938 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,113 




HUF


Hungarian forint


305,69 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2433 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5980 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0893 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4926 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4587 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3553 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6616 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6091 




KRW


South Korean won


1 350,87 




ZAR


South African rand


15,3363 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7698 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4324 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 922,83 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0392 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,774 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,2670 




THB


Thai baht


39,582 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7098 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2308 




INR


Indian rupee


76,6325 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-578/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Gillet v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Former employed worker under Belgian law — Allowance applicable pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Decision C(2005) 1287 — Recalculation of the amount of the allowance by the administration in the context of an update of management procedures — Act adversely affecting an official or other member of staff — Act which is merely confirmatory — Obligation to state reasons — Recovery of sums overpaid)
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, deduction at source, indemnification, monthly pay, national law, staff regulations (EU), work contract








C_2017357EN.01001101.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/11





Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Gillet v Commission
(Case T-578/16) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Former employed worker under Belgian law - Allowance applicable pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Decision C(2005) 1287 - Recalculation of the amount of the allowance by the administration in the context of an update of management procedures - Act adversely affecting an official or other member of staff - Act which is merely confirmatory - Obligation to state reasons - Recovery of sums overpaid))
(2017/C 357/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Évelyne Gillet (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 12 December 2014 and of 9 April 2015 and subsequent salary statements that reduce the amount of the allowance paid to the applicant, who was employed under an employment contract of indeterminate duration governed by Belgian law, and that require the repayment of amounts overpaid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 9 April 2015 in so far as it seeks to recover the amount of EUR 3 959,38 under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 116 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders Ms Évelyne Gillet to bear her own costs;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 145 of 25.4.2016 (case originally registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-7/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-615/17: Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Ardigo and UO v Commission
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2017382EN.01005001.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/50





Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Ardigo and UO v Commission
(Case T-615/17)
(2017/C 382/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Nicola Ardigo (Lissone, Italy) and UO (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare and rule that






—


the decisions confirming the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights into the European Union pension scheme are annulled;










—


the European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.









Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Appointing Authority of Article 7(1) of the General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 in the calculation by that Authority of the deduction of the amount representing the increase in value of that capital between the date of the application for transfer and that of the actual transfer.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural measures, namely breaches by the Appointing Authority of its obligations to state reasons and to establish, through the GIPs, the mathematical formula by which it calculated the coefficients necessary for the conversion of the capital transferred into years of pensionable service.
Case T-835/16: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Louvers Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment and compensation — Public goods and services contracts — Procurement procedure — Supply of curtains, draperies and interior blinds and fitting, cleaning and maintenance services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Annulment of the procedure — No need to adjudicate — Action manifestly devoid of any foundation in law)
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, damages, invitation to tender, maintenance, provision of services, services contract, supplies contract, textile product








C_2017357EN.01001202.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/12





Order of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Louvers Belgium v Commission
(Case T-835/16) (1)

((Action for annulment and compensation - Public goods and services contracts - Procurement procedure - Supply of curtains, draperies and interior blinds and fitting, cleaning and maintenance services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Annulment of the procedure - No need to adjudicate - Action manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))
(2017/C 357/16)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Louvers Belgium Co. (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: V. Lejeune, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Verheecke and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 19 September 2016 not to award contract No OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703 to the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the unlawful conduct of the Commission in that procurement procedure.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 19 September 2016 not to award contract No OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703 to Louvers Belgium Co. or on the application for damages insofar as it concerns the alleged loss of earnings resulting of the non-award of the contract.










2.


The application for damages is rejected as manifestly devoid of any foundation in law insofar as it concerns the costs and expenses of Louvers Belgium Co. involved in the participation of Louvers Belgium Co. in procurement procedure OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703.










3.


The European Commission shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8625 — DENSO/Fujitsu Ten) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2017297EN.01000801.xml










8.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8625 — DENSO/Fujitsu Ten)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 297/04)






1.


On 30 August 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


DENSO Corporation (Japan),










—


Fujitsu Ten Limited (Japan), belonging to the group Fujitsu Limited.




DENSO Corporation acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Fujitsu Ten Limited.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for DENSO Corporation: the supply of advanced automotive technology, systems and components for automobile manufacturers,
—   for Fujitsu Ten Limited: the supply of advanced automotive technology, systems and components for automobile manufacturers.










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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8625 — DENSO/Fujitsu Ten
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email:




COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal 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 T-618/17: Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Activa Minoristas del Popular v ECB and SRB
Date: 2017-09-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, access to information, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2018013EN.01001902.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/19





Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Activa Minoristas del Popular v ECB and SRB
(Case T-618/17)
(2018/C 013/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Activa Minoristas del Popular. Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Arredondo Diaz, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare the present action admissible;










—


Declare that the defendant has a right of access to the file on which the contested resolutions are based;










—


Annul the contested decision of the Single Resolution Board and declare that it is null and void as from the date of its adoption and, in the alternative, if annulment is impossible, declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation for the harm caused by that decision;










—


Order the defendants to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, as well as the costs that it may incur up to the General Court’s final ruling.





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.