do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-393/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, consultancy, information technology, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017382EN.01006101.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/61





Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y)
(Case T-393/16) (1)

(2017/C 382/75)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eight Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Case T-114/10: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction in financial aid — Programme Interreg II/C programme ‘Rhine-Meuse flood’ — Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, balance of payments assistance, environmental risk prevention, financial aid, natural disaster








C_2017392EN.01002801.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/28





Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-114/10) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction in financial aid - Programme Interreg II/C programme ‘Rhine-Meuse flood’ - Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))
(2017/C 392/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, and subsequently by: J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents, and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, and subsequently by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: C. Wissels and M. Noort, and subsequently by: M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008).

Operative part of the order







1.


Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008) is annulled insofar as it concerns the Federal Republic of Germany.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany.










3.


The French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
Case C-538/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Thomas Murphy against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2017 in Case T-90/16: Murphy v EUIPO
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, measuring equipment








C_2018104EN.01001102.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/11





Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Thomas Murphy against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2017 in Case T-90/16: Murphy v EUIPO
(Case C-538/17 P)
(2018/C 104/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Thomas Murphy (represented by: N. Travers SC, J. Gormley, BL, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nike Innovate CV
By order of 30 January 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-539/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE v European Commission
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU control, Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, civil code, contract, national law, proof, subcontracting








C_2017374EN.01002201.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/22





Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE v European Commission
(Case C-539/17 P)
(2017/C 374/31)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission;










—


uphold the company’s action of 6 February 2015;










—


dismiss the Commission’s counterclaim;










—


order the Commission to pay all the appellant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







(1)


Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement at issue — Infringement of the provisions concerning subcontracting under the financial regulation in force.






—


The General Court assessed Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code incorrectly, as regards application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement.










—


The General Court erred as to the interpretation of the provisions concerning subcontracting, as laid down in Article 130 et seq. of Regulation (EU) No 2342/2002 and in contractual clauses I.II.2.4 and II.13.1 of the Framework Contract signed under number FP7/2009/1.














(2)


Incorrect interpretation and application of a contractual clause and manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence.






—


The General Court erred as to the interpretation of clause II.22., Financial audits and controls, of Annex II to the agreement that was signed, mistakenly rejecting claims in that regard by the applicant/appellant.














(3)


Manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence and defective reasoning.






—


The General Court erred as it manifestly distorted key evidence that was relied on by the appellant and admitted by the respondent.
Case T-394/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (DATABAY)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, consultancy, information technology, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017382EN.01006102.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/61





Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (DATABAY)
(Case T-394/16) (1)

(2017/C 382/76)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eight Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017302EN.01000101.xml










13.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 September 2017
(2017/C 302/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1933 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,93 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4400 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89878 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5355 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1444 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3593 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,105 




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2549 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6018 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,0948 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4847 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4477 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3235 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6343 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6074 




KRW


South Korean won


1 346,05 




ZAR


South African rand


15,4800 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8024 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4513 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 751,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0120 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,765 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,3844 




THB


Thai baht


39,522 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7117 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,1297 




INR


Indian rupee


76,4385 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-104/10: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction in financial aid — RESIDER II programme — Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Saarland, balance of payments assistance, financial aid








C_2017392EN.01002702.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/27





Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-104/10) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction in financial aid - RESIDER II programme - Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))
(2017/C 392/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Operative part of the order







1.


Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany is annulled.










2.


The European Commission shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
Case T-119/10: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2017 — Netherlands v Commission (Actions for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Programme Interreg II/C ‘Rhine-Meuse flood protection’ — Non-compliance with the period prescribed for the adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Rhine Valley, financial aid, flood, watercourse








C_2017424EN.01003601.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/36





Order of the General Court of 27 September 2017 — Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-119/10) (1)

((Actions for annulment - ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Programme Interreg II/C ‘Rhine-Meuse flood protection’ - Non-compliance with the period prescribed for the adoption of a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))
(2017/C 424/52)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (initially by Y. de Vries, J. Langer and C. Wissels, and subsequently by J. Langer and M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented: initially by M. Jacobs and T. Materne, and subsequently by M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, Agents) and by French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, and subsequently by J. Bousin and D. Colas, Agents)

Parties

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial assistance granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008).

Operative part of the order







1.


Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial assistance granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008) is annulled in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of the Netherlands.










2.


The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.










3.


The Kingdom of Belgium and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
Case C-569/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, migrant worker, residence, social security, unpaid leave








C_2017382EN.01000801.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/8





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-569/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b)(i) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months))
(2017/C 382/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing and employed in the territory of one Member State who, for a period of three months, takes unpaid leave and is employed in the territory of another Member State, is to be regarded as normally employed in the territory of two Member States within the meaning of that provision, provided that, during that period of leave, he is considered as normally employed under the social security legislation of the first Member State and that the activity carried out on the territory of the second Member State is habitual and significant in nature, which it is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case C-329/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, company with share capital, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, heating, public sector, purchase








C_2017382EN.01000602.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
(Case C-329/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat))
(2017/C 382/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ENEA S.A.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, placing an obligation on both private and public undertakings to purchase electricity produced by cogeneration with the production of heat does not constitute intervention by the State or through State resources.


(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
Case T-97/09: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction in financial aid — Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Saxony, balance of payments assistance, financial aid








C_2017392EN.01002601.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/26





Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-97/09) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction in financial aid - Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))
(2017/C 392/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: M. Lumma, C. Blaschke and T. Henze, and subsequently by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Conte, A. Steiblytė and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer, and subsequently by: A. Rubio González, abogado del estado, and finally by: V. Ester Casas, acting as Agent), and Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: C. Wissels and Y. de Vries, and subsequently by: J. Langer and B. Koopman, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8465 final of 19 December 2008 on the reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region of the Land of Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999) in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/4 of 5 August 1994, Commission Decision C(94) 2273/4 of 22 August 1994 and Commission Decision C(94) 1425 of 6 September 1994.

Operative part of the order







1.


Commission Decision C(2008) 8465 final of 19 December 2008 on the reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region of the Land of Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999) in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/4 of 5 August 1994, Commission Decision C(94) 2273/4 of 22 August 1994 and Commission Decision C(94) 1425 of 6 September 1994 is annulled.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany.










3.


The Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.