do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-690/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Uluru and Others v Commission and SRB
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, investment, ownership, right to justice








C_2018005EN.01004602.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/46





Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Uluru and Others v Commission and SRB
(Case T-690/17)
(2018/C 005/63)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Uluru, SL (Madrid, Spain), Juan Adolfo Álvarez Lorenzana (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) and Raquel Fortet Rodríguez (Madrid) (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, J. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín, P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Annul SRB’s decision SRB/EES/2017/08 and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017 and, consequently, (i) order SRB and the European Commission to reinstate in favour of the applicants their investments in Banco Popular in the terms set out in the application or, (ii) in the alternative, order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability in the terms set out in the application;










—


Order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability in the terms set out in the application;










—


Declare the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert invalid and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants in the terms set out in the present application;










—


Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings;










—


Order that all the sums awarded to the applicants accrue compensatory interest as of 23 May 2017 (or, in the alternative, as of 7 June 2017) up to the date of the judgment and, additionally, default interest as of the date of the judgment, except for the costs resulting from the present proceedings, which will only accrue default interest as of the date of the judgment; and










—


Award to the applicants any additional remedy that it considers appropriate in 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.
Case C-567/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas — Lithuania) — ‘LitSpecMet’ UAB v ‘Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(9) — Concept of contracting authority — Company wholly owned by a contracting authority — Transactions internal to the group)
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, maintenance, public institution, rail transport, services contract, services of general interest








C_2017402EN.01000201.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/2





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas — Lithuania) — ‘LitSpecMet’ UAB v ‘Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas’ UAB
(Case C-567/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(9) - Concept of contracting authority - Company wholly owned by a contracting authority - Transactions internal to the group))
(2017/C 402/02)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘LitSpecMet’ UAB

Defendant:‘Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas’ UAB

Intervening party:‘Plienmetas’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that a company which, on the one hand, is wholly owned by a contracting authority whose activity consists of meeting needs in the general interest and which, on the other, carries out both transactions for that contracting authority and transactions on the competitive market must be classified as a ‘body governed by public law’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the activities of that company are necessary for the contracting authority to exercise its own activity and, in order to meet needs in the general interest, that company is able to be guided by non-economic considerations, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. The fact that the value of the internal transactions may in future represent less than 90 % or an insignificant part of the overall turnover of the company is irrelevant in that regard.


(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
Case T-337/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACCINO — Earlier EU word mark VERSACE — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017392EN.01002401.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/24





Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)
(Case T-337/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACCINO - Earlier EU word mark VERSACE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 392/30)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Francetti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1172/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Gianni Versace and Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case T-700/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Traviacar and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2018005EN.01004801.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/48





Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Traviacar and Others v SRB
(Case T-700/17)
(2018/C 005/65)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Traviacar, S.L. (O Carballiño, Spain) and 96 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;










—


Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;










—


Order the Single Resolution Board 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-693/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — García Gómez and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2018022EN.01004202.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/42





Action brought on 5 October 2017 — García Gómez and Others v SRB
(Case T-693/17)
(2018/C 022/59)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Abel García Gómez and Others (Torrevieja, Spain) and 2 199 other applicants (represented by: J. Cremades García, S. Rodríguez Bajón and M. F. Ruiz Núñez, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Declare this action for annulment admissible and well founded;










—


Pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 inapplicable or, in the alternative, declare Articles 21, 22(2)(a) and 24 inapplicable, as well as Articles 18 and 23 thereof;










—


Annul the contested SRB Decision;










—


Order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants in respect of harm caused to them by the implementation of rules contrary to EU law;










—


In the alternative, order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants, as shareholders and creditors, based on the consideration that the Banco Popular’s valuation presented by the applicants is the final valuation under Regulation No 806/2014 in order to determine whether shareholders and creditors would have received better treatment had the institution under resolution initiated ordinary insolvency proceedings;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) allowing the resolution of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.
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-701/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — OCU v SRB
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2018005EN.01004802.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/48





Action brought on 5 October 2017 — OCU v SRB
(Case T-701/17)
(2018/C 005/66)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;










—


Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;










—


Order the Single Resolution Board 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-687/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Vendrell Marti v SRB
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2018005EN.01004601.xml










8.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/46





Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Vendrell Marti v SRB
(Case T-687/17)
(2018/C 005/62)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Pedro Vendrell Marti (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;










—


Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;










—


Order the Single Resolution Board 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017333EN.01000101.xml










5.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 333/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

4 October 2017
(2017/C 333/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1787 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4427 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88768 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5425 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1456 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3533 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,886 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2971 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5808 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,2016 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4986 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4678 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2007 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6403 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6023 




KRW


South Korean won


1 342,67 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9832 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8163 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5051 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 857,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9830 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,071 




RUB


Russian rouble


67,8176 




THB


Thai baht


39,274 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6929 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3870 




INR


Indian rupee


76,6410 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-336/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO — Earlier EU word mark VERSACE — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2017392EN.01002302.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/23





Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)
(Case T-336/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO - Earlier EU word mark VERSACE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 392/29)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Francetti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Gianni Versace and Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo.

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 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal held that there had been genuine use of the earlier EU mark VERSACE for textile goods (not included in other classes) other than ‘household linen’ in class 24;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;










4.


Orders EUIPO to bear one half of its own costs;










5.


Orders Gianni Versace SpA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Special Report No 13/2017 — ‘A single European rail traffic management system: will the political choice ever become reality?’
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Union Agency for Railways, common transport policy, intra-EU transport, rail network, safety device, technical specification, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport safety








C_2017333EN.01000701.xml










5.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 333/7





Special Report No 13/2017
‘A single European rail traffic management system: will the political choice ever become reality?’
(2017/C 333/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 13/2017 ‘A single European rail traffic management system: will the political choice ever become reality?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-705/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Temes Rial and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-10-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017424EN.01005401.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/54





Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Temes Rial and Others v SRB
(Case T-705/17)
(2017/C 424/78)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Enrique Manuel Temes Rial (Vilagarcía de Arousa, Spain), Jon Nuñes Baracaldo (Erandio Astraburua, Spain), Maria Luisa Muniente Pallas (Madrid, Spain), Alfonso Velasco Nieto (Madrid) and Gloria María Zarco Martínez (Guarnizo el Astillero, Spain) (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer).

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which that decision is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;










—


Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;










—


Order the Single Resolution Board 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.