do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-680/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Helibética v SRB
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, aid for restructuring, bond, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership








C_2017424EN.01004901.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/49





Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Helibética v SRB
(Case T-680/17)
(2017/C 424/72)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


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

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities it owned;










—


Order the Board to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 as compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’):






—


Principally, the reimbursement of the investments made, namely EUR 1 010 677,50 in Banco Popular shares;










—


In the alternative to the above claim, EUR 514 957;














—


Increase the amount due with compensatory interest as of 7 June 2017 until delivery of the judgment disposing of the present case;










—


Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points.










—


Order the SRB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17 Vallina Fonseca v SRB.
Case T-686/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, aid for restructuring, bond, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership








C_2017424EN.01005002.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/50





Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB
(Case T-686/17)
(2017/C 424/74)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Medicina Asturiana, SA (Oviedo) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived them of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities they owned;










—


Order the Board to pay to the applicants EUR 1 850 000 and the bonds’ unpaid interest accrued up to the date of repayment as compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’);










—


Increase the amount due with compensatory interest as of 7 June 2017 until delivery of the judgment disposing of the present case;










—


Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points.










—


Order the SRB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17 Vallina Fonseca v SRB.
Case C-582/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 October 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H.
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, foreign national, jurisdiction, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2017424EN.01002401.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 October 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H.
(Case C-582/17)
(2017/C 424/35)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendant: H.

Question referred

Must Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person … be interpreted as meaning that only the Member State in which the application for international protection was first lodged can determine the Member State responsible, with the result that a foreign national has a legal remedy only in that Member State, under Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation, against the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility set out in Chapter III of that Regulation, including Article 9?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31; ‘the Dublin Regulation’.
Case T-411/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL — Earlier EU word mark GAP — Cross-appeal — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017382EN.01003801.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/38





Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL)
(Case T-411/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL - Earlier EU word mark GAP - Cross-appeal - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 382/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gap (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Siciarek and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Gap (ITM) and PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark), the application for registration in respect of goods falling within Class 20 and corresponding to the description ‘furniture’;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.






(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in the Czech Republic (09893/2017 — C8-0197/2017 — 2017/0806(CNS))
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Czechia, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, exchange of information, information system, personal data, vehicle registration








C_2018346EN.01024001.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/240






P8_TA(2017)0370
Automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in the Czech Republic *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in the Czech Republic (09893/2017 — C8-0197/2017 — 2017/0806(CNS))
(Consultation)
(2018/C 346/34)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (09893/2017),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0197/2017),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0288/2017),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.8222 — Knorr-Bremse/Haldex) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, economic concentration, merger control, vehicle on rails, vehicle parts








C_2017332EN.01000101.xml










4.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/1





Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.8222 — Knorr-Bremse/Haldex)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 332/01)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 1 June 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Knorr-Bremse and Haldex. On 19 September 2017, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8659 — Equistone Partners Europe SAS/Groupe Bruneau) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, office supplies








C_2017332EN.01000601.xml










4.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8659 — Equistone Partners Europe SAS/Groupe Bruneau)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 332/05)






1.


On 26 September 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:






—


Equistone Partners Europe SAS (France),










—


Cusco Holding (France), holding company of the Groupe Bruneau.




Equistone Partners Europe SAS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Groupe Bruneau.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Equistone Partners Europe SAS: professional investment capital fund management,
—   for Groupe Bruneau: distribution of office supplies.










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.8659 — Equistone Partners Europe SAS/Groupe Bruneau
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 C-581/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 October 2017 — Martin Wächtler v Finanzamt Konstanz
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Switzerland, agreement (EU), capital gains tax, free movement of persons, national law, residence, tax law, taxpayer








C_2018013EN.01000502.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 October 2017 — Martin Wächtler v Finanzamt Konstanz
(Case C-581/17)
(2018/C 013/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Martin Wächtler

Defendant: Finanzamt Konstanz

Question referred

Are the provisions of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 (1) between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, which entered into force on 1 June 2002, and in particular the preamble and Articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 16 and 21 thereof and Article 9 of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State under which, in order to prevent any element of the taxable basis from being lost, latent, as yet unrealised, appreciations in the value of company rights (without deferment) are charged to tax in the case where a national of that Member State with initially unlimited tax liability transfers his residence from that State to Switzerland and not to a Member State of the European Union or to a State to which the European Economic Area Agreement applies?


(1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8626 — CRH/XI (RMAT)) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, mining industry, subsidiary








C_2017332EN.01000501.xml










4.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8626 — CRH/XI (RMAT))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 332/04)






1.


On 25 September 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:






—


CRH Zehnte Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH (‘CRH Zehnte’, Germany) controlled by CRH plc (Ireland),










—


XI (RMAT) Holdings GmbH (‘XI (RMAT)’, Germany), the holding company of Fels-Werke GmbH.




CRH Zehnte acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of XI (RMAT).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CRH: manufacture and distribution of various building materials worldwide, organised into three business segments, which are heavyside (including aggregates, cement, lime and concrete), lightside (including glass and glazing systems, construction accessories, and shutters and awnings), and distribution (of sanitary, heating and plumbing products, operation of general builder merchants and DIY stores);
—   for CRH Zehnte: wholly owned indirect subsidiary of CRH;
—   for XI (RMAT): holding company of Fels-Werke;
—   for Fels-Werke GmbH: mining, processing and distribution of lime and limestone products in Germany, the Czech Republic and Russia, as well as the production of gypsum and mortar. The Transaction does not include the sale of the Schraplau plant.










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.










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.8626 — CRH/XI (RMAT)
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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’).
Case T-685/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v SRB
Date: 2017-10-04
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_2017424EN.01005001.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/50





Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v SRB
(Case T-685/17)
(2017/C 424/73)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Miralla Inversiones (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:
First — take note of the present application and acknowledge the lodging of annulment proceedings against 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 and, once the relevant verifications have been carried out, declare the action admissible and follow the procedure set out in Article 120 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;
Second — In accordance with the application, order SRB to submit without delay the provisional valuation carried out by DELOITTE in accordance with Article 20 of the Regulation (EU) 806/2014 for the purpose of enabling the proper exercise of the right of the defence and, once that valuation has been submitted, allow the applicant a specific period to analyse and examine it in detail, so that it is in a position to oppose it during the reply stage;
Third — In the event that it does not accept the claims made in the previous paragraph and the proceedings continue, rule that Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular and the valuation on which it is based are contrary to EU law.

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.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Portugal (09898/2017 — C8-0213/2017 — 2017/0807(CNS))
Date: 2017-10-04
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Portugal, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, exchange of information, information system, personal data, vehicle registration








C_2018346EN.01024101.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/241






P8_TA(2017)0371
Automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Portugal *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Portugal (09898/2017 — C8-0213/2017 — 2017/0807(CNS))
(Consultation)
(2018/C 346/35)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (09898/2017),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0213/2017),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0289/2017),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.