do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-341/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Article 2(1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled — Article 22(4) — Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights — Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark)
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, residence, territorial jurisdiction, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01000602.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/6





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping
(Case C-341/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Article 2(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled - Article 22(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights - Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark))
(2017/C 402/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hanssen Beleggingen BV

Defendant: Tanja Prast-Knipping

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark.


(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
State aid — Decision to raise no objections
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, travel agency








C_2017333EN.01000801.xml










5.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 333/8





State aid — Decision to raise no objections
(2017/C 333/06)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:








Date of adoption of the decision



:


13 July 2017





Case No



:


80780





Decision No



:


143/17/COL





EFTA State



:


Norway





Region



:


The three Counties Nordland, Troms and Finnmark





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



:


Tour operators





Legal basis



:


Budgetary decisions taken by the Counties Nordland, Troms and Finnmark





Type of measure



:


Operating aid





Objective



:


The objective is to prevent depopulation through the creation of jobs in the tourist industry by supporting tour operators organising charter flights (i.e. not scheduled flights) to airports in three counties in Northern Norway.





Form of aid



:


Operating aid





Budget



:


NOK 10 million





Intensity



:


25 %





Duration



:


Prolongation from 1.11.2017 to 31.12.2020





Economic sectors



:


Tour operators with charter flights





Name and address of the granting authority



:


The three Counties Nordland, Troms and Finnmark





Other information



:


 




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 October 2017 on the draft Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (09941/2017 — C8-0229/2017 — 2013/0255(APP))
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, Committee on Budgets, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on Petitions, European Parliament
Subjects: Eurojust, European Anti-fraud Office, administrative procedure, fraud, fraud against the EU, operation of the Institutions








C_2018346EN.01024601.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/246






P8_TA(2017)0384
Enhanced cooperation: European Public Prosecutor's Office ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 October 2017 on the draft Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (09941/2017 — C8-0229/2017 — 2013/0255(APP))
(Special legislative procedure — consent)
(2018/C 346/40)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council regulation (09941/2017),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0229/2017),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0290/2017),












1.


Gives its consent to the draft Council regulation;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Case T-149/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Ben Ali v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Legal basis — Reinclusion of the applicant’s name on the basis of new grounds — Obligation to state reasons — Factual basis — Right to property — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Tunisia, admissibility, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal basis, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, trade restriction








C_2017392EN.01001901.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/19





Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Ben Ali v Council
(Case T-149/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Legal basis - Reinclusion of the applicant’s name on the basis of new grounds - Obligation to state reasons - Factual basis - Right to property - Proportionality))
(2017/C 392/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sirine Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: S. Maktouf, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and G. Étienne, and subsequently by Á. de Elera San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157 of 30 January 2015 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 29) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/147 of 30 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sirine Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case C-437/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 — Wolf Oil Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), SCT Lubricants UAB (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHEMPIOIL — Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION — Opposition dismissed)
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, special chemicals, trade-mark law








C_2017402EN.01000701.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/7





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 — Wolf Oil Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), SCT Lubricants UAB
(Case C-437/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHEMPIOIL - Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION - Opposition dismissed))
(2017/C 402/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Wolf Oil Corp. (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent), SCT Lubricants UAB (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
Case C-585/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 October 2017 — Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid recipient, control of State aid, environmental tax, tax rebate








C_2018013EN.01000601.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 October 2017 — Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr
(Case C-585/17)
(2018/C 013/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr

Intervener: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Questions referred







1.


In a situation such as that in the present case, does an amendment to an approved aid scheme whereby a Member State elects no longer to use the approval of that aid in connection with a particular (separable) group of beneficiaries, and thus simply reduces the level of aid granted under an existing aid measure, constitute an alteration of an aid scheme which is subject (in principle) to the obligation to notify laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?










2.


In the event of a formal error in the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (1) of 6 August 2008 (general block exemption regulation), is the standstill obligation laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU capable of rendering a restriction of an approved aid scheme inapplicable, with the result that the standstill obligation has the effect of compelling the Member State to pay aid to particular beneficiaries (‘implementation obligation’)?










3a.


Does an energy tax rebate scheme such as that at issue here, under which the amount of the energy tax rebate is clearly determined by law on the basis of a calculation formula, fulfil the conditions laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (2) of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty?










3b.


Does Article 58(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 have the effect of exempting such an energy tax rebate scheme for the period from January 2011?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation), OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1.
Case T-36/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COLINEB — Earlier national figurative mark Colina — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017392EN.01002501.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/25





Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB)
(Case T-36/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark COLINEB - Earlier national figurative mark Colina - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 392/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Forest Pharma BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ipsen Pharma SAS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2016 (Case R 500/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ipsen Pharma and Forest Pharma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Forest Pharma BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Ipsen Pharma SAS to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.