do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-329/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (Snitem), Philips France v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Scope — ‘Medical device’ — CE marking — National legislation making drug prescription assistance software subject to a certification procedure laid down by a national authority)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, health legislation, medical device, pharmaceutical product, software








C_2018052EN.01000701.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (Snitem), Philips France v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
(Case C-329/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Scope - ‘Medical device’ - CE marking - National legislation making drug prescription assistance software subject to a certification procedure laid down by a national authority))
(2018/C 052/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (Snitem), Philips France

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that software, of which at least one of the functions makes it possible to use patient-specific data for the purposes, inter alia, of detecting contraindications, drug interactions and excessive doses, is, in respect of that function, a medical device within the meaning of those provisions, even if that software does not act directly in or on the human body.


(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case T-853/16: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Techniplan v Commission (Action for failure to act — Defined position of the Commission — Action for damages — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Application for an injunction — Manifest inadmissibility — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: ACP countries, EU financing, European Development Fund, admissibility, civil engineering, engineering structure, indemnification, injunction, jurisdiction








C_2018052EN.01003001.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/30





Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Techniplan v Commission
(Case T-853/16) (1)

((Action for failure to act - Defined position of the Commission - Action for damages - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Application for an injunction - Manifest inadmissibility - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
(2018/C 052/42)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, acting as Agent)

Re:

First, application based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act vis-à-vis the applicant and, secondly, application seeking imposition of the obligation to act provided for in Article 266 TFEU and the payment of a sum by way of compensation for the damage suffered ‘for each day of delay in compliance’.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Techniplan Srl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/2265 of 7 December 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Libya, common ports policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, trade restriction, vessel








L_2017324EN.01005301.xml










8.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 324/53








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2017/2265
of 7 December 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 27 November 2017, the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011) 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, 7 December 2017.


For the Council


The President

A. ANVELT
            





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




ANNEX
In Section B (entities) of Annex V to 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 Jul. 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: unknown. As of 21 September 2017, the vessel was located in international waters off the United Arab Emirates.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8618 — OMV/Verbund/Smatrics/E-Mobility Provider) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, gas industry, gas supply, merger control, oil industry








C_2017418EN.01000101.xml










7.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8618 — OMV/Verbund/Smatrics/E-Mobility Provider)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 418/01)
On 30 November 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 German language 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 32017M8618. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-369/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Ireland v Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(i) and (iv), and (d) — Limitation — Article 15 — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, excise duty, fuel, limitation of legal proceedings, metallurgical industry, mineral oil, principle of legal certainty, tax exemption








C_2018063EN.01000301.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/3





Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Ireland v Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission
(Case C-369/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(i) and (iv), and (d) - Limitation - Article 15 - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations))
(2018/C 063/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, L. Williams and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: R. Coesme and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (represented by: C. Little and C. Waterson, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs.










3.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Case T-559/16: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Durazzo v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2014 promotion exercise — Acts not adversely affecting an official — Manifest inadmissibility — Decision not to promote the applicant — Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion — Purely literal assessments — No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion — Manifestly well-founded action)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, promotion, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018052EN.01002802.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/28





Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Durazzo v EEAS
(Case T-559/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2014 promotion exercise - Acts not adversely affecting an official - Manifest inadmissibility - Decision not to promote the applicant - Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits - Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion - Purely literal assessments - No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion - Manifestly well-founded action))
(2018/C 052/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Giacomo Durazzo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: initially by S. Marquardt and M. Silva, and subsequently by S. Marquardt, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of three acts of the EEAS, namely (i) the proposal for promotion of 11 July 2014 in so far as it concerns Grade AD 13, (ii) the decision of 29 October 2014 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 under the 2014 promotion exercise, and (iii) the decision of 28 May 2015 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant against that refusal to promote him.

Operative part of the order







1.


The decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 29 October 2014 not to promote Mr Giacomo Durazzo to Grade AD 13 under the 2014 promotion exercise is annulled.










2.


The action is dismissed as to the remainder.










3.


The EEAS is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-101/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Case T-148/17: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament (Action for annulment — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Partial inadmissibility — Partial non-suit)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, debt, parliamentary allowance








C_2018042EN.01002602.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/26





Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament
(Case T-148/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Partial inadmissibility - Partial non-suit))
(2018/C 042/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: initially, M. Ceccaldi and, subsequently, F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jensen, M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 23 June 2016 concerning recovery from the applicant of the amount of EUR 56 554 unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, of the related debit note, and of the decision of the Quaestors of 13 December 2016 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 June 2016.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch as it relates to the application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 concerning the recovery from Ms Mylène Troszczynski of the amount of EUR 56 554 unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, and of the related debit note, and to the claim that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 50 000 as reimbursement of recoverable costs.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action inasmuch as it relates to the application for annulment of the decision of the Quaestors of 13 December 2016 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 June 2016.










3.


Ms Troszczynksi shall bear her own costs and also pay those incurred by the Parliament.










4.


The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Case C-567/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) -- United Kingdom) — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Industrial and commercial property — Patent law — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article (3)(b) — Supplementary protection certificate — Conditions for obtaining — Article 10(3) — Granting of the certificate or rejection of the application for a certificate — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 28(4) — Decentralised procedure)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, patent








C_2018052EN.01001002.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/10





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) -- United Kingdom) — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
(Case C-567/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial and commercial property - Patent law - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article (3)(b) - Supplementary protection certificate - Conditions for obtaining - Article 10(3) - Granting of the certificate or rejection of the application for a certificate - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 28(4) - Decentralised procedure))
(2018/C 052/13)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is to be interpreted as meaning that an end of procedure notice issued by the reference Member State in accordance with Article 28(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended, as regards pharmacovigilance, by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 2010, before the expiry of the basic patent, as defined in Article 1(c) of Regulation No 469/2009, may not be treated as equivalent to a marketing authorisation within the meaning of Article 3(b) of that regulation, with the result that a supplementary protection certificate may not be obtained on the basis of such a notice.










2.


Article 10(3) of Regulation No 469/2009 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that no marketing authorisation has been granted by the Member State concerned at the time the supplementary protection certificate application is lodged in that Member State does not constitute an irregularity that can be cured under that provision.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Special Report No 19/2017 — ‘Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU’
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, budgetary resources, customs duties, customs fraud, customs inspection, customs union, financing of the EU budget, import (EU), surveillance concerning imports








C_2017418EN.01000701.xml










7.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/7





Special Report No 19/2017
‘Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU’
(2017/C 418/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 19/2017 ‘Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU’ 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 C-598/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Jerez de la Frontera) — Banco Santander SA v Cristobalina Sánchez López (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer contracts — Unfair terms — Powers of the national court — Effectiveness of the protection afforded to consumers — Mortgage loan agreement — Extrajudicial enforcement procedure — Simplified declaratory court procedure for recognition of the real rights of the successful bidder)
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer protection, jurisdiction, mortgage, real estate credit, real property, transfer of property, unfair terms of contract








C_2018052EN.01000301.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Jerez de la Frontera) — Banco Santander SA v Cristobalina Sánchez López
(Case C-598/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Unfair terms - Powers of the national court - Effectiveness of the protection afforded to consumers - Mortgage loan agreement - Extrajudicial enforcement procedure - Simplified declaratory court procedure for recognition of the real rights of the successful bidder))
(2018/C 052/03)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Jerez de la Frontera

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Banco Santander SA

Defendant: Cristobalina Sánchez López

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer do not apply to proceedings such as those at issue in the main proceedings, brought by the successful bidder in an auction of immovable property, following extrajudicial enforcement of a mortgage granted over that property by a consumer to a creditor acting in the course of trade, such proceedings having been brought for the purpose of protecting real rights lawfully acquired by the successful bidder, provided that, first, the proceedings are independent of the legal relationship between that creditor and the consumer and, second, the mortgage has been enforced, the immovable property sold, the real rights over that property transferred, and the consumer has not availed himself of the legal remedies provided in that context


(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case T-622/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Alles wird gut — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gift item, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002802.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/28





Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)
(Case T-622/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Alles wird gut - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 032/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 (Case R 212/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Alles wird gut as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.