do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-831/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil)
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018052EN.01004301.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/43





Action brought on 29 December 2017 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil)
(Case T-831/17)
(2018/C 052/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: DRH Licensing & Managing AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word element ‘Flexagil’ — EU trade mark No 7 301 237

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2017 in Case R 2043/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision R 2043/2016-4 of the Board of Appeal of 17 October 2017 in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings relating to Case R 2043/2016.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation 2017/1001.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017446EN.01000601.xml










29.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 446/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 December 2017
(2017/C 446/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1934 




JPY


Japanese yen


134,74 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4455 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88768 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8452 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1704 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8670 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,645 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,30 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1808 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6520 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,5459 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5330 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5049 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3274 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6856 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5968 




KRW


South Korean won


1 276,37 




ZAR


South African rand


14,7325 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8001 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5115 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 184,89 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8530 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,561 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,7979 




THB


Thai baht


38,929 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9496 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,4672 




INR


Indian rupee


76,4730 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-835/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Serbia, anti-dumping legislation, flat product, import (EU), iron, originating product, right to justice, steel








C_2018072EN.01004201.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/42





Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission
(Case T-835/17)
(2018/C 072/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister and G. Forwood, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 2 of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 (JO 2017, L 258, p. 24)










—


order the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and










—


order the Commission to pay its costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error of law in deciding not to cumulate Serbian imports with imports from the other four countries under investigation, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law in finding that trade defence measures against Serbia were ‘unnecessary’ within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the Basic Regulation, even on a de-cumulated basis.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation, the applicant’s right to disclosure and its rights of defence, as well as a breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, owing to the Commission’s failure to disclose the injury margin (underselling) and undercutting margin with respect to Serbian imports, and its consequent refusal to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ [2016] L 176/21).
Case T-834/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, delivery, economic concentration, logistics, merger control








C_2018072EN.01004101.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/41





Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission
(Case T-834/17)
(2018/C 072/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: A. Ryan, solicitor, F. Hoseinian and W. Knibbeler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


compensate UPS for the damages incurred, in the amount of EUR 1 742 billion and applicable interest;










—


compensate UPS for the taxes that will be imposed on the damages obtained, on the basis of the tax rate applicable on the day of judgment; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation under Article 340 TFEU for the loss suffered as a consequence of Commission Decision C(2013) 431, Case COMP/M.6570 UPS/TNT Express (‘the Decision’) which was annulled by the General Court on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13.
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the Decision is tainted with serious breaches of rules of law that are intended to confer rights on UPS. According to the applicant, each breach individually underpinned the Decision and prevented the applicant from acquiring TNT and from materialising the benefits associated with that proposed transaction.
The applicant claims that these breaches are a serious breach of the law regarding (1) the price concentration analysis; (2) the efficiencies analysis; (3) the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness; and (4) the assessment of the closeness of competition made in the Decision.
According to the applicant, each of these breaches, individually or considered together, is responsible for the unlawful Decision and establishes the Union’s liability under Article 340 TFEU.
The applicant further claims that these breaches in turn caused the applicant’s loss because had they not taken place, UPS would have acquired TNT. Without any one of the erroneous price concentration analysis, the efficiencies analysis, the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness and the closeness of competition assessment, so the applicant claims, no ordinarily prudent and diligent administration would have prohibited the proposed Transaction.
According to the applicant, it should therefore be put in the position it would have been in had the unlawful Decision not been adopted by way of compensation under Article 340 TFEU.
Case T-836/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER)
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2018063EN.01002201.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/22





Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER)
(Case T-836/17)
(2018/C 063/30)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sports Group Denmark A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: E. Skovbo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K&L GmbH & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘WHISTLER’ — Application for registration No 12 870 648

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2017 in Case R 311/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reject the opposition in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Declaration by the President of the European Parliament on the reform of the system of own resources of the Union
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: President of the EP, budget policy, general budget (EU), own resources








C_2017446EN.01000401.xml










29.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 446/4





Declaration by the President of the European Parliament on the reform of the system of own resources of the Union
(2017/C 446/02)
Without prejudice to Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament is committed to the reform of the system of own resources of the Union, based on the recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources. In this context, the European Parliament underlines the need for comprehensive legislative proposals on the Union’s own resources together with the next multiannual financial framework. The Union’s revenue and expenditure should be dealt with in parallel.
Case C-723/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2017 — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer; other party: Belgische Staat
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air quality, pollution control, sampling








C_2018104EN.01001602.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2017 — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer; other party: Belgische Staat
(Case C-723/17)
(2018/C 104/21)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Lies Craeynest, Cristina Lopez Devaux, Frédéric Mertens, Stefan Vandermeulen, Karin De Schepper, ClientEarth

Defendants: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer

Other party: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 4(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2008/50/EC (1) of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, be interpreted as meaning that, when it is alleged that a Member State has not sited the sampling points in a zone in accordance with the criteria set out in point B.1.(a) of Annex III to Directive 2008/50, it is for the national courts, on application by individuals who are directly affected by the exceedance of the limit values referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, to examine whether the sampling points were sited in accordance with those criteria and, if they were not, to take all necessary measures against the national authority, such as an order, with a view to ensuring that the sampling points are sited in accordance with those criteria?










2.


Is a limit value within the meaning of Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of [Directive 2008/50/EC] exceeded in the case where an exceedance of a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, has been established on the basis of the measurement results from one single sampling point within the meaning of Article 7 of that directive, or does such an exceedance occur only when this becomes apparent from the average of the measurement results from all sampling points in a particular zone within the meaning of Directive 2008/50?






(1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).
Corrigendum to the Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 August 2016 to 31 August 2016 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) (OJ C 362, 30.9.2016)
Date: 2017-12-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product, veterinary drug, withdrawal from the market








C_2017447EN.01011001.xml










29.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/110





Corrigendum to the Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 August 2016 to 31 August 2016 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 362 of 30 September 2016
)

(2017/C 447/03)
On page 9:







for:



‘Withdrawal of a marketing authorization (Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)’,











read:



‘Suspension of a marketing authorization (Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)’.