do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-112/18: Action brought on 23 February 2018 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink)
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: pip fruit, plant variety right, principle of legal certainty








C_2018152EN.01004201.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/42





Action brought on 23 February 2018 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink)
(Case T-112/18)
(2018/C 152/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Pink Lady America LLC (Yakima, Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Manno and S. Travaglio, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) (South Perth, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO


Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community Plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU1640, apple variety Cripps Pink

Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity.

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 14 September 2017 in Case A007/2016

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the Cripps Pink apple tree variety CPVR No 1640 for lack of novelty according to Article 10 along with Article 20 of Regulation No 2100/94;










—


order the CPVO and the Western Australian Agriculture Authority to bear the costs and expenses of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the combined provisions of Articles 10 and 20 of Regulation No 2100/94;










—


Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 and of the general principles of law on legal certainty and sound administration of justice in conjunction with Article 50(3) of Regulation No 874/2009.
Case C-376/17: Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Arkadiusz Piotr Lipinski
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, appeal, criminal proceedings, legal hearing, suspension of sentence








C_2018190EN.01001904.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/19





Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Arkadiusz Piotr Lipinski
(Case C-376/17) (1)

(2018/C 190/32)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Case C-147/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2018166EN.01002102.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Banco Mare Nostrum S.A. v Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López
(Case C-147/18)
(2018/C 166/28)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Almería

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Banco Mare Nostrum S.A.

Respondents: Ignacio Jesús Berenguel Nieto, Carmen Sonia Salinas López

Questions referred







1.


Does a declaration, obtained by judgment, that an unfair term is non-binding, within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) preclude the application of all the effects acknowledged by the judgment [of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others, C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15]?










2.


Is the application of the restitutory effects of a term held to be unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts affected, limited or precluded by the principle that the subject-matter of an action is defined by the parties, the principle that the parties determine the facts and evidence forming the basis for a decision, the principle of substantive res judicata, and the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus?










3.


Are the functions of a court of second instance limited by the fact that the judgment at first instance granted limited effect to a declaration of unfairness, and the judgment has not been appealed against by the consumer but only by the seller or supplier, who included the term, in order to dispute the unfairness of the term or any effects arising from the declaration that the term was unfair?










4.


Do the functions of a court of second instance extend to the possibility of applying all the consequences provided for in Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 and the case-law interpreting it, even where the consumer did not seek, in his initial claim in the application, all the effects deriving from a declaration that the term in question is unfair?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p 29.
Case T-445/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2018 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico) (Plant variety rights — Application for Community plant variety rights for the plant variety Gala Schnico — Technical examination — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Uniformity — Article 8 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Complementary examination — Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 — Equal treatment — Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94)
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, industrial property, pip fruit, plant propagation, plant variety right








C_2018123EN.01001701.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/17





Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2018 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)
(Case T-445/16) (1)

((Plant variety rights - Application for Community plant variety rights for the plant variety Gala Schnico - Technical examination - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Uniformity - Article 8 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Complementary examination - Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 - Equal treatment - Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94))
(2018/C 123/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


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

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 22 April 2016 (Case A 005/2014) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right in respect of the plant variety Gala Schnico.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Schniga GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018069EN.01002201.xml










23.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/22





Euro exchange rates (1)

22 February 2018
(2018/C 69/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2276 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4462 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88343 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9963 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1508 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6893 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,316 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,69 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1819 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6555 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6648 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5699 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5589 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6059 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6761 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6232 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,26 




ZAR


South African rand


14,3835 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8085 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4445 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 831,62 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8112 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,911 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,6731 




THB


Thai baht


38,761 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0149 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0731 




INR


Indian rupee


79,8895 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/49 of 11 January 2018 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 following a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 7, 12.1.2018)
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








L_2018051EN.01002301.xml










23.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 51/23







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/49 of 11 January 2018 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 following a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 7 of 12 January 2018
)


On the Contents page and on page 31, in the title of the regulation:
for:


                        ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/49 of 11 January 2018 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 following a “new exporter” review pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council’,

read:


                        ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/49 of 11 January 2018 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from, inter alia, Tunisia, whether declared as originating in, inter alia, Tunisia or not, following a “new exporter” review pursuant to Article 11(4) and 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council’.
Case C-152/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: banking supervision, capital increase, competence of the institution, credit institution, financial control, financial supervision, infringement of EU law








C_2018161EN.01004102.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/41





Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank
(Case C-152/18 P)
(2018/C 161/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-712/15) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/28) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutuel.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:






—


the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;










—


the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)







(1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).
Case C-145/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, artistic profession, intellectual property, photograph, tax relief, visual arts








C_2018161EN.01004001.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/40





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
(Case C-145/18)
(2018/C 161/44)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Regards Photographiques SARL

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Minister for the Public Sector and Public Accounts)

Questions referred







‘—


Must the provisions of Articles 103 and 311 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) and paragraph 7 of part A in Annex IX thereto, be interpreted as meaning that they require only that the photographs are taken by their photographer, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered up to a maximum of 30 copies, all sizes and mounts included, in order to be able to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT?










—


If the answer to the first question is yes, are Member States nevertheless permitted to exclude from the benefit of the reduced rate of VAT photographs that are not, in addition, artistic in character?










—


If the answer to the first question is no, what other conditions must the photographs satisfy in order to benefit from the reduced rate of VAT? In particular, must they show an artistic character?










—


Must those conditions be interpreted uniformly within the European Union, or do they refer to the law or each Member state, in particular in the field of intellectual property?’






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-143/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer law, distance selling, financial services, loan, provision of services, termination of a contract








C_2018182EN.01000902.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank
(Case C-143/18)
(2018/C 182/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano

Defendant: DSL Bank

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice such as that of the main proceedings which does not provide for the right of withdrawal to be inapplicable in the case of distance loan contracts whose performance has been fully completed by both parties at the consumer’s express request before the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal?










2.


Are Article 4(2), Article 5(1), the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 6(6) of Directive 2002/65/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, for proper receipt of information as provided for by national law in accordance with Article 5(1) and Article 3(1)(3)(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC and the exercise of the right of withdrawal by the consumer pursuant to national law, reference must be made to no consumer other than a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, having regard to all the relevant facts and all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of this contract?










3.


In the event that Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative:
Is Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/65/EC to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that, after withdrawal from a distance consumer loan contract has been declared, the supplier must also pay to the consumer, beyond the sum he has received from the consumer in accordance with the distance contract, compensation for the benefit of use on this sum?






(1)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8606 — ELG Haniel/Iberinox/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control, metal waste, wholesale trade








C_2018069EN.01002301.xml










23.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8606 — ELG Haniel/Iberinox/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 69/03)






1.


On 16 February 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


ELG Haniel GmbH (‘ELG Haniel’, Germany);










—


Iberinox 88 SA (‘Iberinox’, Spain);










—


Sorpesante, SL (‘the JV’, Spain).




ELG Haniel and Iberinox acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ELG Haniel: is active in the worldwide trade of raw materials for the steel industry,
—   for Iberinox: is also active in the trade of raw materials for the steel industry, with its core business focused on stainless steel scrap,
—   for the JV: will be active in the trade in raw materials for the steel industry. To this end, it will take over Iberinox’s business with the exception of the activities of its subsidiary Aleaciones e Inoxidables Acerec, SA, which will continue its current business unaffected by the proposed concentration.










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:
M.8606 — ELG Haniel/Iberinox/JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: 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 C-153/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-52/16, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank
Date: 2018-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: banking supervision, capital increase, competence of the institution, credit institution, financial control, financial supervision, infringement of EU law








C_2018161EN.01004201.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/42





Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-52/16, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank
(Case C-153/18 P)
(2018/C 161/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-52/16) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 4 December 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/40) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutual.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:






—


the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;










—


the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)







(1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).