do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-140/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205) (Plant varieties — Nullity proceedings — Sugar beet variety M 02205 — Article 20(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Article 7 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Technical examination — Procedure before the Board of Appeal — Obligation to analyse carefully and impartially all the elements relevant to the present case — Power to alter)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: plant variety right, sugar beet, technical standard








C_2018013EN.01001201.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/12





Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)
(Case T-140/15) (1)

((Plant varieties - Nullity proceedings - Sugar beet variety M 02205 - Article 20(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 7 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Distinctness of the candidate variety - Technical examination - Procedure before the Board of Appeal - Obligation to analyse carefully and impartially all the elements relevant to the present case - Power to alter))
(2018/C 013/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented: initially by L.-B. Buchman, lawyer, and subsequently by L.-B. Buchman, R. Crespi and M. Razou, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented: initially by F. Mattina, subsequently by M. Mattina and M. Ekvad, and finally by M. Mattina, M. Ekvad and A. Weitz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the Court: SESVanderhave NV (Tirlemont, Belgium) (represented: initially by K. Neefs and P. de Jong and subsequently by P. de Jong, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 26 November 2014 (Case A 010/2013) concerning nullity proceedings between Aurora and SESVanderhave.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 26 November 2014 (Case A 010/2013);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the CPVO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aurora Srl;










4.


Orders SESVanderhave NV to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Case C-131/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial — Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, jurisdiction, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2018032EN.01000702.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/7





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
(Case C-131/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
(2018/C 032/10)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hélder José Cunha Martins

Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Oporto, Portugal).


(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017396EN.01000201.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 November 2017
(2017/C 396/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1749 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4420 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88810 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8818 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1609 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6723 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,469 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,54 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2155 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6525 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6557 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5503 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4969 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1775 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7183 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5885 




KRW


South Korean won


1 280,17 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3090 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7755 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5770 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 879,95 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8292 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,499 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,9476 




THB


Thai baht


38,466 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8288 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,0985 




INR


Indian rupee


76,2510 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8425 — Safran/Zodiac) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, aircraft, economic concentration, helicopter, merger control, space technology








C_2017396EN.01001301.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8425 — Safran/Zodiac)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 396/09)






1.


On 16 November 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:






—


Safran SA (France),










—


Zodiac Aerospace SA (France).




Safran acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Zodiac.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 24 May 2017.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Safran SA: aerospace (propulsion and equipment), aircraft equipment and defence,
—   for Zodiac Aerospace SA: aerospace equipment and on-board systems for commercial, regional and business aircraft and helicopters.










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.8425 — Safran/Zodiac
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’).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 23 November 2017 in the case of Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS (Case E-10/17)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, civil liability proceedings, competition policy, damages, fine, limitation of legal proceedings, offence








C_2018119EN.01001101.xml










5.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/11





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 23 November 2017 in the case of Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS
(Case E-10/17)
(2018/C 119/12)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 23 November 2017 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 November 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS on the following questions:






1.


Does it follow from the EEA law principle of equivalence that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly in connection with an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by ESA imposing a fine?










2.


Does the EEA law principle of effectiveness restrict the EEA States' right to apply a limitation period of three years for bringing an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA, when this limitation period is combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party that could lead to the limitation period expiring before ESA has reached a decision in a case concerning infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA based on a complaint from the injured party?










3.


What elements should be given weight in the assessment of whether the application of the national limitation period, as mentioned in Question 2, is compatible with the EEA law principle of effectiveness in competition cases of a nature and scope like the present one?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8722 — OMERS/Thames Water) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, pipeline transport, provision of services, water management








C_2017396EN.01001601.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/16





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8722 — OMERS/Thames Water)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 396/11)






1.


On 16 November 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:






—


Omers Administration Corporation (‘OMERS’, Canada),










—


Thames Water (UK).




OMERS acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over the whole of Thames Water.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—



OMERS is the administrator of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Primary Pension Plan in Canada,










—



Thames Water is a private utility company that is primarily active in the regulated provision of integrated water and sewerage services to household customers in the Thames Valley region, which incorporates London and parts of south-east England.














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 the 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:
Case M.8722 — OMERS/Thames Water
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-765/17: Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Kiku v CPVO — Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Pinova)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: industrial property, pip fruit, plant variety right








C_2018022EN.01005602.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/56





Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Kiku v CPVO — Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Pinova)
(Case T-765/17)
(2018/C 022/75)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Kiku GmbH (Girlan, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Dresden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO


Proprietor of the contested plant varieties: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Plant variety at issue: Plant variety right for the apple variety ‘PINOVA’ — Certificate No EU 1298

Procedure before the CPVO: Nullity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 16 August 2017 in Case A005/2016

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the CPVO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 20(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles 10 and 116(1), of Regulation No 2100/94.
Case T-617/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — PF v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2015 promotion exercise — Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Duty to provide a statement of reasons — Consideration of comparative merits — Use of languages in the context of the duties performed by administrators assigned to linguistic duties and by administrators assigned to non-linguistic duties — Legitimate absences — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, linguistics, professional qualifications, promotion, use of languages








C_2018013EN.01001601.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/16





Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — PF v Commission
(Case T-617/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion exercise - Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Duty to provide a statement of reasons - Consideration of comparative merits - Use of languages in the context of the duties performed by administrators assigned to linguistic duties and by administrators assigned to non-linguistic duties - Legitimate absences - Manifest error of assessment))
(2018/C 013/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PF (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 8 in the 2015 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PF to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-47/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Case C-381/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 16 — Trade mark as an object of property — Dealing with EU trade marks as national trade marks — Article 18 — Transfer of a trade mark registered in the name of the agent or representative of the trade mark’s proprietor — National provision allowing the possibility of bringing an action for recovery of ownership of a national trade mark registered in fraud of the owner’s rights or in breach of a legal or contractual obligation — Whether compatible with Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, ownership, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01001301.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/13





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo
(Case C-381/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 16 - Trade mark as an object of property - Dealing with EU trade marks as national trade marks - Article 18 - Transfer of a trade mark registered in the name of the agent or representative of the trade mark’s proprietor - National provision allowing the possibility of bringing an action for recovery of ownership of a national trade mark registered in fraud of the owner’s rights or in breach of a legal or contractual obligation - Whether compatible with Regulation No 207/2009))
(2018/C 022/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna

Defendant: Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 16 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as not precluding the application to an EU trade mark of a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a person harmed, by the trade mark registration which was applied for in fraud of his rights or in breach of a legal or contractual obligation, is entitled to claim ownership of that trade mark, provided that the situation concerned does not fall within those covered by Article 18 of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
Case T-886/16: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty Factory (NAILS FACTORY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, packaging product, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01003201.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/32





Order of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty Factory (NAILS FACTORY)
(Case T-886/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
(2018/C 032/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and E. Scheffer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nails & Beauty Factory GmbH, formerly Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 202/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nf Nails In Vogue and Nails & Beauty Vertriebs.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nf Nails In Vogue, SL.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case C-472/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE), Sace BT SpA v European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeal — State aid — Export credit insurance — Reinsurance cover provided by a public undertaking to its subsidiary — Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Private investor test)
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, export credit insurance, private investment, reinsurance, subsidiary








C_2018022EN.01000201.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/2





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE), Sace BT SpA v European Commission, Italian Republic
(Case C-472/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Export credit insurance - Reinsurance cover provided by a public undertaking to its subsidiary - Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Private investor test))
(2018/C 022/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE), Sace BT SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents) Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) and Sace BT SpA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal;










3.


Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8414 — DNB/Nordea/Luminor Group) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2017396EN.01000101.xml










23.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 396/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8414 — DNB/Nordea/Luminor Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 396/01)
On 14 September 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 32017M8414. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.