do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-326/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 — LL v European Parliament (Appeal — Action for annulment — Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Calculation — Former Member of the European Parliament — Decision relating to the recovery of parliamentary assistance allowances — Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament — Article 72 — Complaint procedure within the European Parliament — Notification of the decision adversely affecting a Member of the European Parliament — Registered letter not collected by its addressee)
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, limitation of legal proceedings, parliamentary allowance








C_2018134EN.01000401.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 — LL v European Parliament
(Case C-326/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Action for annulment - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Time limit for instituting proceedings - Calculation - Former Member of the European Parliament - Decision relating to the recovery of parliamentary assistance allowances - Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 72 - Complaint procedure within the European Parliament - Notification of the decision adversely affecting a Member of the European Parliament - Registered letter not collected by its addressee))
(2018/C 134/05)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Appellant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, advokatas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Toliušis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 April 2016, LL v Parliament (T-615/15, not published, EU:T:2016:432);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the merits;










3.


The costs are reserved.






(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
Case T-179/17: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYouX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark NYouX — Earlier national word mark NUXE — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018123EN.01001901.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/19





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYouX)
(Case T-179/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark NYouX - Earlier national word mark NUXE - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Distinctive character - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 123/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Roux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard–Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Élisabeth Camille (Alicante, Spain) and Jean–Yves Tariot (Alicante)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 (Case R 718/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Laboratoire Nuxe and, on the other, Ms Camille and Mr Tariot.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 January 2017 (Case R 718/2016-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Case C-150/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-212/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01000201.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/2






Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-212/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO
(Case C-150/18 P)
(2018/C 392/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: El Corte Inglés SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH
By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-151/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01000202.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/2






Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO
(Case C-151/18 P)
(2018/C 392/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: El Corte Inglés SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH
By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-518/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Article 2 — Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’ — Article 17 — Derogations — Firefighters — Stand-by times — Stand-by times at home)
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, fire protection, rest period








C_2018134EN.01000201.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak
(Case C-518/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 2 - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’ - Article 17 - Derogations - Firefighters - Stand-by times - Stand-by times at home))
(2018/C 134/02)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ville de Nivelles

Defendant: Rudy Matzak

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 17(3)(c)(iii) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not derogate, with regard to certain categories of firefighters recruited by the public fire services, from all the obligations arising from the provisions of that directive, including Article 2 thereof, which defines, in particular, the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’.










2.


Article 15 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not permitting Member States to maintain or adopt a less restrictive definition of the concept of ‘working time’ than that laid down in Article 2 of that directive.










3.


Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to determine the remuneration of periods of stand-by time such as those at issue in the main proceedings according to the prior classification of those periods as ‘working time’ or ‘rest period’.










4.


Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that stand-by time which a worker spends at home with the duty to respond to calls from his employer within 8 minutes, very significantly restricting the opportunities for other activities, must be regarded as ‘working time’.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8751 — Bell/Hügli) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, merger control, wholesale selling








C_2018065EN.01000301.xml










21.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/3







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8751 — Bell/Hügli)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 65/02)

On 7 February 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 German language 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 32018M8751. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8816 — Goldman Sachs/Centerbridge/Robyg) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, building industry, economic concentration, investment, investment company, merger control, property market, real property, securities








C_2018065EN.01002601.xml










21.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/26







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8816 — Goldman Sachs/Centerbridge/Robyg)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 65/08)


1.   
On 14 February 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 Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA),










—


Centerbridge Partners, LP (‘Centerbridge’, USA),










—


Robyg SA (‘Robyg’, Poland).




Goldman Sachs and Centerbridge acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Robyg.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Goldman Sachs: global investment banking, securities and investment management,
—   for Centerbridge: investment management focused on private equity and distressed investment opportunities,
—   for Robyg: indirectly solely controlled by Goldman Sachs, construction and sale of flats and commercial real estate in Poland.


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.8816 — Goldman Sachs/Centerbridge/Robyg
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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018065EN.01000601.xml










21.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/6







Euro exchange rates (1)


            20 February 2018
         
(2018/C 65/05)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2340 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4473 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88168 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9688 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1537 




ISK


Iceland króna


124,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6683 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,318 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,78 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1467 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6636 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6566 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5648 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5553 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6549 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6782 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6272 




KRW


South Korean won


1 323,70 




ZAR


South African rand


14,4916 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8290 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4385 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 819,73 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8101 




PHP


Philippine peso


64,560 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,9071 




THB


Thai baht


38,883 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0114 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0002 




INR


Indian rupee


80,0030 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-727/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER) (EU trade mark — Decision of a Board of Appeal revoking an earlier decision — Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure)
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical energy, energy production, registered trade mark, renewable energy, trade-mark law








C_2018123EN.01001702.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/17





Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap.org (REPOWER)
(Case T-727/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Decision of a Board of Appeal revoking an earlier decision - Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure))
(2018/C 123/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV)), relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Repower AG and repowermap.org.






(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Decision 2013/183/CFSP (OJ L 141, 28.5.2016)
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: North Korea, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, technology transfer, trade restriction








L_2018048EN.01004401.xml










21.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 48/44







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Decision 2013/183/CFSP

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 141 of 28 May 2016
)


On page 110, Annex I, Part B (Entities), entry 23, third column (Location):
for:

               ‘… SWIFT: DCBK KKPY’,
read:

               ‘… SWIFT: DCBK KPPY’.
Case C-628/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Kreuzmayr GmbH v Finanzamt Linz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Successive supplies relating to the same goods — Place of the second supply — Information provided by the first supplier — VAT identification number — Right to deduct — Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct)
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, supply, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2018134EN.01000902.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/9





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Kreuzmayr GmbH v Finanzamt Linz
(Case C-628/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Successive supplies relating to the same goods - Place of the second supply - Information provided by the first supplier - VAT identification number - Right to deduct - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))
(2018/C 134/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kreuzmayr GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Operative part of the judgment







1.


In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 32 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the second of two successive supplies of the same goods which gave rise to only one intra-Community transport.










2.


Where the second supply in a chain of two successive supplies involving a single intra-Community transport is an intra-Community supply, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that the person ultimately acquiring the goods, who wrongly claimed a right to deduct input value added tax, may not deduct, as input value added tax, the value added tax paid to the supplier solely on the basis of the invoices provided by the intermediary operator which incorrectly classified its supply.






(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case T-482/13: Order of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v EUIPO — Cryo-Save (CryoDafe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2018152EN.01003402.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/34





Order of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v EUIPO — Cryo-Save (CryoDafe)
(Case T-482/13) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2018/C 152/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cryo-Save AG and MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action;










2.


MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG and Cryo-Save AG are ordered to jointly and severally to bear the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG et Cryo-Save AG are ordered to bear their own costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.






(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8753 — HASCO/Magna/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2018065EN.01000302.xml










21.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/3







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8753 — HASCO/Magna/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 65/03)

On 16 February 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 32018M8753. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.