do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-361/15 P and C-405/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Easy Sanitary Solutions BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Group Nivelles NV (Appeal — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 5 — Novelty — Article 6 — Individual character — Article 7 — Disclosure to the public — Article 63 — Powers of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the taking of evidence — Burden of proof on the applicant for a declaration of invalidity — Requirements relating to the reproduction of an earlier design — Design for a shower drainage channel — Dismissal of an application for a declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal)
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building materials, designs and models, plumbing equipment








C_2017392EN.01000502.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/5





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Easy Sanitary Solutions BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Group Nivelles NV
(Joined Cases C-361/15 P and C-405/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 5 - Novelty - Article 6 - Individual character - Article 7 - Disclosure to the public - Article 63 - Powers of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the taking of evidence - Burden of proof on the applicant for a declaration of invalidity - Requirements relating to the reproduction of an earlier design - Design for a shower drainage channel - Dismissal of an application for a declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal))
(2017/C 392/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellants: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (represented by: F. Eijsvogels, advocaat) (C-361/15 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by S. Bonne and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents) (C-405/15 P)

Other party to the proceedings: Group Nivelles NV (represented by: H. Jonkhout, advocaat)

Intervener in support of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-405/15 P): United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by J. Kraehling and C.R. Brodie, acting as Agents, and by N. Saunders, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals in the Cases C-361/15 P and C-405/15 P;










2.


Orders Easy Sanitary Solutions BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Group Nivelles NV and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Case C-361/15 P;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and also to pay the costs incurred by Group Nivelles NV in Case C-405/15 P;










4.


Orders EUIPO to pay a third of the costs incurred by Easy Sanitary Solutions BV in Case C-405/15 P, the remaining two thirds of those costs being borne by Easy Sanitary Solutions BV;










5.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs in Case C-405/15 P.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Case T-638/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017382EN.01005601.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/56





Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB
(Case T-638/17)
(2017/C 382/69)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Helibética, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










—


Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










—


Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;










—


Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.





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-87/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission (Financial assistance — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — ASSET Convention — Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit — Action for annulment — Legitimate expectations — Arbitration clause — Deadline for providing the audit report — Adversarial principle — Eligibility of costs — Contractual liability)
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, claim, damages, financial aid, intelligent transport system, interest, principle of legal certainty, road safety, road transport








C_2017374EN.01003102.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/31





Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission
(Case T-87/16) (1)

((Financial assistance - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - ASSET Convention - Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit - Action for annulment - Legitimate expectations - Arbitration clause - Deadline for providing the audit report - Adversarial principle - Eligibility of costs - Contractual liability))
(2017/C 374/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, Agents)

Re:

On the one hand, application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision of 17 December 2015 to proceed to recovery by offsetting, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit, certain sums advanced to the applicant under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project, concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, and, on the other hand, application based on Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that that debt does not exist, that the expenditure incurred under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project is eligible and to order the Commission to confirm that the funding granted is lawful, to order the Commission to pay a sum under Grant Agreement No 607049 in respect of the Eksistenz project and to pay contractual compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eurofast SARL to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 78 380,28, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contribution from which it benefitted under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the project ‘Aeronautic Study on Seamless Transport’, plus late-payment interest at a rate of 3,55 % from 13 January 2015, after deduction of the offset amount, namely EUR 69 923,68 as at 17 December 2015.










3.


Orders Eurofast to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those related to the interlocutory procedure.






(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Action brought on 21 September 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-7/17)
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EC conformity marking, Iceland, application of EU law, market supervision, marketing standard, safety standard, technical standard








C_2017386EN.01001001.xml










16.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/10





Action brought on 21 September 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-7/17)
(2017/C 386/08)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 September 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle, and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order, and in any event has failed to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement the Act, as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.




Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:






—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 8 February 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 8 December 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels, as referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Case C-149/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘redundancies’ — Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ — Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions)
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, pay, social policy, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions








C_2017392EN.01000801.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/8





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu
(Case C-149/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions))
(2017/C 392/11)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra

Defendant: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to engage in the consultations provided for in Article 2 when it intends, to the detriment of the employees, to make a unilateral amendment to the terms of remuneration which, if refused by the employees, will result in termination of the employment relationship, to the extent that the conditions laid down in Article 1(1) of that directive are fulfilled, which is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017313EN.01000101.xml










21.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 September 2017
(2017/C 313/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2007 




JPY


Japanese yen


133,63 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4412 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88680 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5335 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1532 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3440 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,091 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,34 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2774 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5993 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1642 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4891 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4701 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3668 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6277 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6128 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,44 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9058 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8948 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4828 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 945,90 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0339 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,117 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,4380 




THB


Thai baht


39,707 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7579 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3147 




INR


Indian rupee


77,1965 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-642/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — González Buñuel and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017402EN.01004401.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/44





Action brought on 21 September 2017 — González Buñuel and Others v SRB
(Case T-642/17)
(2017/C 402/58)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Antonio González Buñuel (Barcelona, Spain) and 12 other applicants (represented by: J. De Castro Martín, M. Azpitarte Sánchez and J. Ruiz de Villa Jubany, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


In accordance with Article 263 TFEU, annul the Decision of the SRB concerning the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL (SRB/EES/2017/08);










—


In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order SRB to pay to the applicants, at the expense of the Single Resolution Fund established in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 806/2014, compensation for the damage caused to the applicants as a direct consequence of the Decision concerning the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL and the value of which corresponds to the market value of the capital instruments of the banking institution the day preceding (6 June 2017) the implementation of the resolution scheme; in the alternative, in the event that the Court does not uphold the previous claim for compensation, order SRB to pay to the applicants compensation, the value of which corresponds to the difference, which will be determined by the valuation of the independent person laid down in Article 20(16) of Regulation No 806/2014, between the payment in respect of their claims received by the applicants pursuant to the application of the Decision and the amount they would have received under a normal insolvency procedure;










—


In accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order SRB to pay the costs of these proceedings.





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 C-429/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) and Article 2 — Concept of ‘redundancies’ — Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ — Unilateral amendment by the employer of working and pay conditions — Determination of the employer’s ‘intention’ to effect redundancies)
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, pay, social policy, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions








C_2017392EN.01001001.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/10





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi
(Case C-429/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) and Article 2 - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of working and pay conditions - Determination of the employer’s ‘intention’ to effect redundancies))
(2017/C 392/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Małgorzata Ciupa, Jolanta Deszczka, Ewa Kowalska, Anna Stańczyk, Marta Krzesińska, Marzena Musielak, Halina Kaźmierska, Joanna Siedlecka, Szymon Wiaderek, Izabela Grzegora

Defendant: II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that a unilateral amendment of conditions of pay by the employer, to the detriment of the employees, which, in the event of an employee’s refusal, entails the termination of the contract of employment is capable of being regarded as a ‘redundancy’ within the meaning of that provision, and Article 2 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to carry out the consultations provided for in Article 2 where he contemplates effecting such a unilateral amendment of the conditions of pay, in so far as the conditions laid down in Article 1 of the directive are satisfied, which is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
Case C-554/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 September 2017 — Rebecka Jonsson v Société du Journal L’Est Républicain
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, civil proceedings, legal expenses








C_2017402EN.01001502.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 September 2017 — Rebecka Jonsson v Société du Journal L’Est Républicain
(Case C-554/17)
(2017/C 402/18)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rebecka Jonsson

Defendant: Société du Journal L’Est Républicain

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure constitute an obstacle to the application of a national provision under which the costs of proceedings may be set off or adjusted depending on whether the parties were successful in part and unsuccessful in part, where there are a number of claims in the proceedings or where a claim is upheld only in part?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, how is the expression ‘unsuccessful party’ in Article 16 of the regulation to be interpreted?






(1)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 1.