do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-54/18: Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, optical industry, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2018123EN.01002501.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/25





Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)
(Case T-54/18)
(2018/C 123/32)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Application for registration No 8 622 078

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 693/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


stay proceedings pursuant to Art. 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until final and binding decision has been taken on the request for partial revocation against opposition mark EUTM 005066113;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case T-740/16: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, reassignment, servant (EU)








C_2018104EN.01005401.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/54





Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission
(Case T-740/16) (1)

(2018/C 104/70)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8775 — Shell/Impello) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, energy supply, hydrocarbon, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, renewable energy








C_2018034EN.01005001.xml










31.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/50





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8775 — Shell/Impello)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 34/13)






1.


On 22 January 2018, 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:






—


The Shell Petroleum Company Limited (‘Shell Petroleum’, United Kingdom), belonging to the Shell Group of companies, controlled by Royal Dutch Shell plc. (‘Shell’, United Kingdom),










—


Impello Limited (‘Impello’, United Kingdom).




Shell acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Impello.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Shell: global group of energy and petrochemical companies with activities in oil and gas exploration, production, manufacturing, marketing and shipping of oil products and chemicals, and renewable energy products. Shell is also active in the trading and wholesale supply of electricity and gas, including in the United Kingdom and Germany.
—   for Impello: independent energy supplier to household customers in the United Kingdom and Germany (known as First Utility).










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 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.8775 — Shell/Impello
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-106/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Scope ratione personae — Concept of ‘injured party’ — Professional in the insurance sector — Not included)
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, claim, damages, insurance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, natural person, private international law, transport accident








C_2018112EN.01000501.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/5





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG
(Case C-106/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Scope ratione personae - Concept of ‘injured party’ - Professional in the insurance sector - Not included))
(2018/C 112/07)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Paweł Hofsoe

Defendant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it may not be relied on by a natural person, whose professional activity consists, inter alia, in recovering claims for damages from insurers and who relies on a contract for the assignment of a claim concluded with the victim of a road accident, to bring a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled.


(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1084 of 14 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 as regards aid for port and airport infrastructure, notification thresholds for aid for culture and heritage conservation and for aid for sport and multifunctional recreational infrastructures, and regional operating aid schemes for outermost regions and amending Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 as regards the calculation of eligible costs (OJ L 156, 20.6.2017)
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: State aid, airport, control of State aid, cultural promotion, harbour installation, heritage protection, leisure, peripheral region, regional aid, transport infrastructure








L_2018026EN.01005301.xml










31.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 26/53







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1084 of 14 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 as regards aid for port and airport infrastructure, notification thresholds for aid for culture and heritage conservation and for aid for sport and multifunctional recreational infrastructures, and regional operating aid schemes for outermost regions and amending Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 as regards the calculation of eligible costs

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 156 of 20 June 2017
)


On page 9, in Article 1(11), in the introductory wording of paragraph 4 of the replaced Article 15:
for:

‘In outermost regions, the operating aid schemes shall compensate for the additional operating costs incurred in those regions as a direct result of one or several of the permanent handicaps referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty, where the beneficiaries have their economic activity in an outermost region provided that the annual aid amount per beneficiary under all operating aid schemes implemented under this Regulation does not exceed any of the following percentages:’,

read:

‘In outermost regions, the operating aid schemes shall compensate for the additional operating costs incurred in those regions as a direct result of one or several of the permanent handicaps referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty, where the beneficiaries have their economic activity in an outermost region provided that the annual aid amount per beneficiary under all operating aid schemes implemented under this Regulation does not exceed one of the following percentages:’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8745 — CD&amp;R/D'Ieteren/Belron) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, maintenance, merger control, motor vehicle industry, provision of services, subsidiary, vehicle parts








C_2018034EN.01000401.xml










31.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/4





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8745 — CD&R/D'Ieteren/Belron)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 34/04)
On 19 January 2018, 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 32018M8745. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8783 — Repsol/Kia/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, energy industry, holding company, merger control, motor car, subsidiary, vehicle rental








C_2018034EN.01005101.xml










31.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/51





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8783 — Repsol/Kia/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 34/14)






1.


On 24 January 2018, 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:






—


Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA (‘Repsol’, Spain),










—


Kia Motors Iberia, SLU (‘Kia’, Spain).




Repsol and Kia acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (‘the JV’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Repsol: publicly listed integrated energy company.
—   for Kia: cars distribution in Spain. Kia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kia Motors Company, which is the holding for the Kia Group, and is ultimately controlled by Hyundai Motor Company.
—   for the JV: car-sharing in Madrid.










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 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.8783 — Repsol/Kia/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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8692 — SAICA/Emin Leydier) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, packaging product, pulp and paper industry, waste recycling








C_2018034EN.01000302.xml










31.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8692 — SAICA/Emin Leydier)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 34/03)
On 23 January 2018, 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 32018M8692. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018034EN.01002501.xml










31.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/25





Euro exchange rates (1)

30 January 2018
(2018/C 34/08)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2421 




JPY


Japanese yen


134,98 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4415 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87930 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7825 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1589 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5628 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,330 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,38 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1449 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6513 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6833 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5345 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5304 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,7117 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6937 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6280 




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,25 




ZAR


South African rand


14,7979 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8566 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4188 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 630,48 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8448 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,753 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,5888 




THB


Thai baht


39,014 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9280 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1289 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0570 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-60/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 31 January 2018 — AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: prevention of pollution, storage of waste, waste, waste disposal, waste recycling








C_2018142EN.01003201.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/32





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 31 January 2018 — AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet
(Case C-60/18)
(2018/C 142/42)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: AS Tallinna Vesi

Respondent: Keskkonnaamet

Intervener: Keskkonnaministeerium

Questions referred







1.


In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, should Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives be interpreted to mean that a national legal act providing that end-of-waste status depends upon whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste is in keeping with that provision of Directive 2008/98/EC?










2.


In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, does the first sentence of Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives grant the waste holder the right to apply to the competent authority or to a court in a Member State for a decision on end-of-waste status in keeping with the applicable case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, irrespective of whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.
Case T-44/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Novartis AG v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018094EN.01001702.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/17





Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Novartis AG v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch)

(Case T-44/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 094/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented: initially by M.R. Douglas, and subsequently by A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, J. Bogatz, and C. Lindenthal, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2015 (Case R 2342/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between SK Chemicals and Novartis.

Operative part of the order







1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-311/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, reassignment, servant (EU)








C_2018104EN.01005501.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/55





Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission
(Case T-311/17) (1)

(2018/C 104/72)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-196/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of an application — Selection procedure — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Duty to provide reasons — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal)
Date: 2018-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), job vacancy, recruitment, servant (EU)








C_2018094EN.01001701.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/17





Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA
(Case T-196/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of an application - Selection procedure - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Duty to provide reasons - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal))
(2018/C 094/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: C. Manolopoulos, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015, Gyarmathy v FRA (F 97/13, EU:F:2015:7), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.