do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-64/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: claim, debt, financial audit, infringement of EU law, judicial power, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2018142EN.01005202.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/52





Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission
(Case T-64/18)
(2018/C 142/70)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistema de Computadores — Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


first, declare that Commission Decision (2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 on the recovery of a debt is null and void in so far as it relates to debit note No 3241507078 and, secondly, annul that decision as to the remainder;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:






1.


With regard to the application for a declaration that the decision is null and void, the applicant relies on the Commission’s appropriation of the powers of the judiciary, in that it substituted the decision of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14, in which the Court set the European Union’s claim relating to a specific debt, with a different, enforceable, decision relating to that debt, in breach of Article 19 TEU and Article 272 TFEU;










2.


With regard to the application for annulment, the applicant relies on:






—


a failure to provide adequate reasons, in that the Commission merely stated that certain systemic errors were found in the checks made in the financial audit carried out in the agreement which is the subject of the contested decision, without, however, explaining what those errors are;










—


misuse of powers, in that, by automatically extending the conclusions of a financial audit carried out in the context of one contractual relationship to other contractual relationships, the Commission infringed the second paragraph of Article 135(5) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and a fundamental principle of administrative contracts in general, and public contracts in particular, that is to say, the inviolability of the remuneration clause.










(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).
Case C-79/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, sanction (EU), service concession








C_2018112EN.01002801.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/28





Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-79/18)
(2018/C 112/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, P. Ondrůšek and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2014/23/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, with the exception of Article 46 and Article 47 in the Länder of Vienna, Styria and Carinthia, or by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


impose on the defendant, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify the transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 52 972 per day;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 51(1) of Directive 2014/23/EU, to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Since the Republic of Austria failed to adopt all the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to give notification of those provisions to the Commission, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
By its application, the Commission requests the Court to impose a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 52 972 per day on the Republic of Austria. The amount of that penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1.
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: 2018-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical process, chemical product, health control, health risk, inorganic chemical product, market approval, marketing standard








C_2018043EN.01000201.xml










6.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/2





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)
(2018/C 43/02)

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(2018) 440


29 January 2018


Sodium dichromate
EC No 234-190-3
CAS No 7789-12-0/10588-01-9


Arkema France, 420 rue d’Estienne d’Orves, 92705 Colombes, France


REACH/17/30/0


Use of sodium dichromate as an additive for suppressing parasitic reactions and oxygen evolution, pH buffering and cathode corrosion protection in the electrolytic manufacture of sodium chlorate with or without subsequent production of chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite


21 September 2029


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant before the sunset date.






(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
Case T-65/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Venezuela v Council
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, right to justice








C_2018134EN.01002401.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/24





Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Venezuela v Council
(Case T-65/18)
(2018/C 134/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, insofar as its provisions concern the Applicant; and










—


order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the restrictive measures without previously informing the Applicant of its intention, and without previously hearing the position of the Applicant on the facts allegedly justifying the restrictive measures, the Council infringed the Applicant’s right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its obligation to state the reasons and to provide sufficient evidence for the adoption of the restrictive measures.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment as concerns the facts on which the restrictive measures are based.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures constitute unlawful countermeasures under customary international law.
Case T-63/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Torro Entertainment v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (TORRO Grande Meat in Style)
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018134EN.01002302.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/23





Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Torro Entertainment v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (TORRO Grande Meat in Style)
(Case T-63/18)
(2018/C 134/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Torro Entertainment (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark TORRO Grande Meat in Style — Application for registration No 14 744 452

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1776/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in part where it dismisses the appeal against the decision of the Opposition division;










—


order EUIPO and Grupo Osborne S.A. to bear the costs of ‘Torro Entertainment’ Ltd. in relation to the proceeding before the Court and in relation to the appeal and opposition proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of the duty to state reasons and of the duty of diligence.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018043EN.01000101.xml










6.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

5 February 2018
(2018/C 43/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2440 




JPY


Japanese yen


136,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4433 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88568 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8338 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1599 




ISK


Iceland króna


125,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6108 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,196 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1585 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6333 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6774 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5664 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5468 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,7288 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7025 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6387 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,64 




ZAR


South African rand


14,9635 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8248 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4330 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 787,78 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8557 




PHP


Philippine peso


64,169 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,4985 




THB


Thai baht


39,223 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0174 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1245 




INR


Indian rupee


79,7435 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 February 2018 on the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (11040/2017 — C8-0320/2017 — 2017/0139(NLE))
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: Brazil, cooperation agreement (EU), renewal of an agreement, scientific cooperation








C_2018463EN.01007201.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 463/72






P8_TA(2018)0021
EU-Brazil Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 February 2018 on the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (11040/2017 — C8-0320/2017 — 2017/0139(NLE))
(Consent)
(2018/C 463/15)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (11040/2017),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2005/781/EC of 6 June 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (1),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0320/2017),










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A8-0004/2018),












1.


Gives its consent to renewal of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Federative Republic of Brazil.






(1)  OJ L 295, 11.11.2005, p. 37.
Case T-75/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018112EN.01004702.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/47





Action brought on 6 February 2018 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
(Case T-75/18)
(2018/C 112/60)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: MPM-Quality v.o.s (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic)

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: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949’ — European Union trade mark No 3 531 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2017 in Case R 556/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 18 and 58 of Regulation No 1001/2017;










—


Infringement of Article 10(3) et seq. and of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1430/2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8779 — PAI Partners/Albéa) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, packaging product








C_2018043EN.01000501.xml










6.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 43/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8779 — PAI Partners/Albéa)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 43/04)






1.


On 29 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:






—


PAI Partners S.A.S. (‘PAI Partners’) (France), is an independent company which manages and advises dedicated private equity funds,










—


Albéa SA (Albéa) (Luxembourg), indirectly controlled by funds managed by Sun Capital Parners.




Pai Partners acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Albéa.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for PAI Partners: private equity company that manages and advises a number of funds that own companies active in a variety of business sectors, such as business services, food and consumer, general industries, healthcare, and retail and distribution,
—   for Albéa: packaging solutions for the beauty industry.










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.8779 — PAI Partners/Albéa
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-77/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, infringement procedure (EU), invitation to tender, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2018112EN.01002701.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/27





Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-77/18)
(2018/C 112/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers, P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, or by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


impose on the Republic of Austria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify the transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day;










—


order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 90(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Since the Republic of Austria failed to adopt all the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to give notification of those provisions to the Commission, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
By its application, the Commission requests the Court to impose a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day on the Republic of Austria. The amount of that penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
Case T-74/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Information displays for vehicles)
Date: 2018-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, traffic signs








C_2018112EN.01004701.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/47





Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Information displays for vehicles)
(Case T-74/18)
(2018/C 112/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Visi/one GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: H. Bourree and M. Bartz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EasyFix GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 1391114-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1424/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeals procedure.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.