do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-824/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018063EN.01001702.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/17





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)
(Case T-824/17)
(2018/C 063/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘H 2 O+’ — International registration No W 1 313 244

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 in Case R 499/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Erroneous application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017441EN.01001401.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/14





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 December 2017
(2017/C 441/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1859 




JPY


Japanese yen


134,59 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4447 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88763 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9844 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1725 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9738 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,715 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,36 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1998 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6363 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,5313 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5451 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5184 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2758 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6931 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5952 




KRW


South Korean won


1 281,82 




ZAR


South African rand


15,0858 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8092 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5468 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 067,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8373 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,525 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,3462 




THB


Thai baht


38,838 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9214 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9004 




INR


Indian rupee


75,9275 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8717 — Engie/IPM Energy Trading/International Power Fuel Company) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, gas industry, gas pipeline, merger control, provision of services, wholesale trade








C_2017441EN.01000102.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8717 — Engie/IPM Energy Trading/International Power Fuel Company)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/02)
On 15 December 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 32017M8717. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-825/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Carbon System Verwaltungs v EUIPO (LIGHTBOUNCE)
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting, photographic industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018052EN.01004201.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/42





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Carbon System Verwaltungs v EUIPO (LIGHTBOUNCE)
(Case T-825/17)
(2018/C 052/55)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gilch and L. Petri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LIGHTBOUNCE’ — Application No 15 152 028

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 in Case R 2301/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 (R 2301/2016-1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-826/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2018052EN.01004202.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/42





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)
(Case T-826/17)
(2018/C 052/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and H. Lindner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fio Systems AG (Leipzig, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FYYO’ — Application No 14 589 261

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 2337/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in appeal proceedings R 2337/2016-4 in so far as it rejected the trade mark application in respect of the goods in Class 9;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case C-726/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018319EN.01001201.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/12






Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO
(Case C-726/17 P)
(2018/C 319/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (represented by: T. Grucelski, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG
By order of 11 July 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-718/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Hungary
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, Greece, Italy, aid to refugees, refugee, resettlement of persons, right of asylum








C_2018112EN.01001901.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/19





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-718/17)
(2018/C 112/25)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought







—


Declare that by failing to indicate, at regular intervals, and at least every three months, the number of applicants who can be relocated swiftly to its territory, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 and, consequently, has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) to (11) of that decision.










—


Order Hungary to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The two decisions adopted by the Council in September 2015, namely, Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 (1) and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601, (2) established a temporary and emergency relocation scheme, under which the Member States had the obligation to relocate from the territory of Italy and Greece persons in need of international protection.
The Council Decisions obliged the Member States to offer every quarter places for applicants who can be relocated, ensuring thereby the prompt and orderly processing of the relocation procedure. Although nearly all the Member States relocated applicants and met their obligations in this field, Hungary has not adopted any kind of measure since the start of the relocation scheme.
On 16 June 2017, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Hungary concerning Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601.
Considering that Hungary’s response was unsatisfactory, the Commission moved on to the next step of the infringement proceedings and, on 26 July 2017, sent Hungary a reasoned opinion.
Considering that the reply to the reasoned opinion was unsatisfactory as well, the Commission decided to bring the case before the Court of Justice for a declaration that Hungary had failed to fulfil its relocation obligations.


(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 146).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 80).
Case C-719/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, Greece, Italy, aid to refugees, refugee, resettlement of persons, right of asylum








C_2018112EN.01001902.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/19





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-719/17)
(2018/C 112/26)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought







1.


declare that, by failing to indicate at regular intervals, at least every three months, the relevant number of applicants who could be relocated swiftly to its territory, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece (1) and Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, (2) and hence also the further obligations concerning relocation laid down in Articles 5(4) to (11) of those two Council decisions;










2.


order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In September 2015 the Council adopted a provisional programme of emergency relocation by means of two decisions, namely Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Decision (EU) 2015/1601, on the basis of which the Member States undertook to relocate from Italy and Greece persons in clear need of international protection.
The Council decisions impose an obligation on the Member States to offer every three months available places for relocation, so as to ensure a speedy and orderly relocation process. While nearly all States carried out relocations and accepted obligations in that field, the Czech Republic has not carried out any relocations since August 2016, and for more than a year now has not offered any new places.
On 15 June 2017 the Commission started a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations against the Czech Republic.
The Czech Republic’s answer was not regarded as satisfactory, and the Commission therefore decided to proceed to the next step in the procedure, namely the issuing of a reasoned opinion on 26 July 2017.
The answer to the reasoned opinion was not regarded as satisfactory, and the Commission therefore decided to bring an action against the Czech Republic before the Court of Justice of the European Union for failure to fulfil obligations concerning relocation.


(1)  OJ 2015 L 239, p. 146.

(2)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 80.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, island, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2017441EN.01002001.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/20





Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/13)






Member State


Italy




Route concerned


Pantelleria – Trapani and vice versa;
Pantelleria – Palermo and vice versa;
Pantelleria – Catania and vice versa;
Lampedusa – Palermo and vice versa;
Lampedusa – Catania and vice versa.




Period of validity of the contract


From 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021.




Deadline for submission of tenders


Two months after the date of publication of this notice.




Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained


For further information:





National Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC)




Air transport development and licensing department (Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo e licenze) Viale Castro Pretorio, 118




00185 Rome




ITALIA




Tel. +39 0644596515




Email: osp@enac.gov.it











Internet


:


http://www.mit.gov.it
http://www.enac.gov.it
Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Aquitaine, France, Ile-de-France, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2017441EN.01001801.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/18





Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/11)






Member State


France




Route concerned


Périgueux-Bassillac-Paris (Orly)




Period of validity of the contract


From 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021




Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders


9 March 2018 (12.00, Paris time)




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







Communauté d’Agglomération du Grand Périgueux




1 Boulevard Lakanal




24 000 Périgueux




FRANCE




Tel. +33 553358600




Email: n.vitel@grandperigueux.fr
Case T-828/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, executive agency, expatriate worker, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018063EN.01001901.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/19





Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission
(Case T-828/17)
(2018/C 063/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule:






—


That the decision of the PMO of 28 February 2017 notifying the applicant that the expatriation allowance of 16 % granted to him and the transport expenses which he had received under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, during the period of employment at EASME, with effect from 16 May 2014, is annulled;










—


Insofar as necessary, that the salary slips corrected following the notification of that decision [are annulled];










—


That the defendant shall pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of sound administration.
Case C-716/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 December 2017 — A
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, debt, free movement of workers, jurisdiction, standard of living








C_2018083EN.01001301.xml










5.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 December 2017 — A
(Case C-716/17)
(2018/C 083/20)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 45 TFEU, as interpreted following the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 8 November 2012 in Case C-461/11, (1) preclude a rule on jurisdiction such as the Danish one, the aim of which is to ensure that the court hearing a case involving debt relief has knowledge of and can take account in its assessment of the specific socio-economic situation in which the debtor and his or her family live and must be assumed will continue to live going forward, and that the assessment may be carried out according to previously-determined criteria establishing what can be deemed to be an acceptably modest standard of living under the debt relief arrangement?




If the answer to question 1 is that the restriction cannot be held to be justified, the EU Court of Justice is asked to answer the following question:






2.


Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as also having direct effect as between private parties in a situation such as the present one, with the result that private creditors must accept reductions or total loss of amounts owed to them by a debtor who has moved to another country?






(1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:704.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, health control, health risk, inorganic chemical product, market approval, marketing standard, paints and varnishes








C_2017441EN.01001501.xml










22.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/15





Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 441/08)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2017) 8331


15 December 2017


Sodium dichromate
EC No 234-190-3, CAS No 10588-01-9 (anhydrous)
CAS No 7789-12-0 (dihydrate)







Gruppo Colle s.r.l.




Via G. Di Vittorio 3/5,




59025 Usella, Cantagallo, Prato,




Italy






REACH/17/27/0


Use of sodium dichromate as mordant in wool dyeing with dark colours


15 December 2021


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies for the holder at present






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm