do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1976 of 30 October 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Libya, cargo vessel, crude oil, economic sanctions, import restriction, international sanctions








L_2017281EN.01003201.xml










31.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 281/32








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2017/1976
of 30 October 2017
         
implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.












(2)


On 20 October 2017, the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011) renewed and amended the listing of a vessel subject to restrictive measures.












(3)


Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 30 October 2017.


For the Council


The President

M. MAASIKAS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.




ANNEX
In section B (Entities) of Annex V to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, entry 1 is replaced by the following:







‘1.



Name: CAPRICORN


A.k.a.: na F.k.a.: na Address: na Listed on: 21 July 2017
            

Additional information

IMO: 8900878. Listed pursuant to paragraphs 10(a) and 10 (b) of resolution 2146 (2014), as extended and modified by paragraph 2 of resolution 2362 (2017) (prohibition to load, transport or discharge; prohibition to enter ports). Pursuant to paragraph 11 of resolution 2146, this designation was renewed by the Committee on 20 October 2017 and is valid until 18 January 2018, unless terminated earlier by the Committee pursuant to paragraph 12 of resolution 2146. Flag State: Tanzania. As of 21 September 2017, the vessel was located in international waters off the United Arab Emirates.’
Case T-736/17: Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Lincoln Global/EUIPO (FLEXCUT)
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machine tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018013EN.01002701.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/27





Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Lincoln Global/EUIPO (FLEXCUT)
(Case T-736/17)
(2018/C 013/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lincoln Global, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FLEXCUT’ — Application for registration No 15 111 198

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 in Case R 2225/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-400/17: Order of the President of the Court of 30 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj — Romania) — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghiţă, Vasilica Gheorghiţă v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — sucursala Dolj
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, exchange rate, unfair terms of contract








C_2018013EN.01001103.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/11





Order of the President of the Court of 30 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj — Romania) — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghiţă, Vasilica Gheorghiţă v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — sucursala Dolj
(Case C-400/17) (1)

(2018/C 013/18)
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Opinion 1/17: Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Canada, economic agreement, international investment, interpretation of the law, settlement of disputes, trade agreement, trade agreement (EU), trade dispute








C_2017369EN.01000201.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/2





Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
(Opinion 1/17)
(2017/C 369/02)
Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, agents, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Is Chapter Eight (‘Investments’), Section F (‘Resolution of investment disputes between investors and states’) of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016, compatible with the Treaties, including with fundamental rights?
Case C-617/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 30 October 2017 — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, competition policy, criminal proceedings, offence








C_2018104EN.01001201.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 30 October 2017 — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
(Case C-617/17)
(2018/C 104/14)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Interveners: Edward Detka, Mirosław Krzyszczak, Zakład Projektowania i Programowania Systemów Sterowania Atempol sp. z o.o. w Piekarach Ślaskich, Tomasz Woźniak, Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych w Bielinach, Lech Marchlewski, Ommer Polska sp. z o.o. w Krapkowicach, Zakład Przetwórstwa Drobiu Marica spółka jawna J.M.E.K. Wróbel sp. jawna w Bielsku Białej, Glimat Marcinek i S-ka sp. jawna w Gliwicach, HTS Polska sp. z o.o., Jastrzębskie Zakładów Remontowych Dźwigi sp. z o.o. w Jastrzębiu Zdroju, Petrofer — Polska sp. z o.o. w Nowinach, Paco Cases Andrzej Paczkowski, Piotr Paczkowski sp. jawna w Puszczykowie, Bożena Kubalańca, Zbigniew Arczykowski, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Handlu i Usług Unipasz sp. z o.o. w Radzikowicach, Pietrzak B.B. Beata Pietrzak Bogdan Pietrzak sp. jawna w Katowicach, Ewelina Baranowska, Przemysław Nikiel, Marcin Nikiel, Janusz Walocha, Marek Grzegolec

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the application of the ne bis in idem principle presupposes not only that the offender and the facts are the same but also that the legal interest protected is the same?










2.


Is Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, (1) in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of EU competition law and of national competition law which are applied in parallel by the competition authority of a Member State protect the same legal interest?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.
Case C-618/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 30 October 2017 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Roger Ducloux, Josée Ducloux, née Lecay
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, consumer credit, consumer information








C_2018022EN.01002501.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 30 October 2017 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Roger Ducloux, Josée Ducloux, née Lecay
(Case C-618/17)
(2018/C 022/37)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, successor in title to Solfea

Defendants: Roger Ducloux, Josée Ducloux, née Lecay

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of credit is 5,97377 %, does the rule provided for in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998 (1) and 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008, (2) according to which, in the French version, ‘Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale. Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1’ [translated in literal terms as ‘[t]he result of the calculation shall be expressed correct to at least one decimal place; if the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at [the first] decimal place shall be increased by one’] allow a stated annual percentage rate of charge of 5,95 % to be considered correct?


(1)  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8626 — CRH/XI(RMAT)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 408/01
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, mining industry, subsidiary








C_2020408EN.01000101.xml










27.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8626 — CRH/XI(RMAT))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 408/01)
On 30 October 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8626. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-741/17: Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Trasys International and Axianseu Digital Solutions v EASA
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, information technology applications, offer price, provision of services








C_2018013EN.01002702.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/27





Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Trasys International and Axianseu Digital Solutions v EASA
(Case T-741/17)
(2018/C 013/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Trasys International GEIE (Brussels, Belgium) and Axianseu Digital Solutions SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Form of order sought

The parties claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision taken on 28 August 2017 for the European Aviation Safety Agency by its director, in the context of the contract entitled ‘EASA.2017.HVP.08: IT Application & Infrastructure Management Services — ITAIMS’ …;










—


consequently, annul the implied decision not to award the various framework contracts to the applicants;










—


order the EASA to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision, with a price which appears to be abnormally low.
Case T-731/17: Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Escribà Serra and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, bond, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, interest, investment, ownership








C_2018022EN.01004801.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/48





Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Escribà Serra and Others v SRB
(Case T-731/17)
(2018/C 022/63)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Juan Escribà Serra (Girona, Spain) and eight other applicants (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 applicants as a result of both its actions and its omissions which resulted in the applicants losing in full their investments in surbordinated bonds of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










—


Order the Board to pay EUR 1 726 504 to the applicants as compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’), broken down as follows:






—


Ramón Romaguera Amat: EUR 1 071 602,94;










—


Cerámica Puigdemont: EUR 260 437,16;










—


Maria Dolors Guell Parnau: EUR 52 524,35;










—


Enrique Escribà Nadal: EUR 70 838,57;










—


Joan Escribà Serra and Maria Dolors Nadal Casaponsa: EUR 151 796,93;










—


Laia Escribà Nadal and Maria Dolors Nadal Casaponsa: EUR 25 299,49;










—


José Sabater Comas and Ma Inmaculada Urgellés Bosch: EUR 94 004,56;














—


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.