do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-134/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aerated drink, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01006701.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/67





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)
(Case T-134/18)
(2018/C 142/86)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BALLER’S PUNCH — Application for registration No 14 823 306

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 998/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 March 2017 in Opposition B002643172;










—


register the opposed mark for all goods covered by the application;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 2017/1001.
Case C-163/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 1 March 2018 — HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO v Aegean Airlines SA
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, ticket, travel agency, traveller








C_2018182EN.01001101.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 1 March 2018 — HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO v Aegean Airlines SA
(Case C-163/18)
(2018/C 182/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO

Defendant: Aegean Airlines SA

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 8(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, under Directive 90/[314]/EEC (2) on package travel (as implemented in national law), has the right to hold his tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket, can no longer claim reimbursement from the air carrier?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can a passenger nevertheless hold the air carrier liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket if it is to be assumed that his tour organiser, if it were to be held liable, would be financially incapable of actually reimbursing the cost of the ticket and that tour organiser has also not taken any safeguard measures to guarantee reimbursement?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
European Parliament decision of 1 March 2018 on the nomination of Annemie Turtelboom as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0008/2018 — 2018/0801(NLE))
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, European Parliament
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the Court of Auditors (EU)








C_2019129EN.01007101.xml










5.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/71






P8_TA(2018)0046
Nomination of a Member of the Court of Auditors — Annemie Turtelboom
European Parliament decision of 1 March 2018 on the nomination of Annemie Turtelboom as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0008/2018 — 2018/0801(NLE))
(Consultation)
(2019/C 129/12)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0008/2018),










—


having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0027/2018),










A.


whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










B.


whereas at its meeting of 20 February 2018 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;












1.


Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Annemie Turtelboom as a Member of the Court of Auditors;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
Case T-146/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BPCE and Others v ECB
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, guarantee, payment








C_2018161EN.01005801.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/58





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BPCE and Others v ECB
(Case T-146/18)
(2018/C 161/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and 36 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 (taken together with its annex) of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;










—


order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.
Case C-9/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services — Whether or not there is a public contract — Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions — Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural advisory services, award of contract, invitation to tender, public institution, services contract, tendering








C_2018142EN.01001201.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/12





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen
(Case C-9/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services - Whether or not there is a public contract - Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions - Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators))
(2018/C 142/16)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Maria Tirkkonen

Intervener: Maaseutuvirasto

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a farm advisory scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, through which a public entity admits all the economic operators who meet the suitability requirements set out in the invitation to tender and who pass the examination referred to in that invitation to tender, even if no new operator can be admitted during the limited validity period of that scheme, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case T-150/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, guarantee, interpretation of the law, payment, principle of proportionality








C_2018161EN.01005901.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/59





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB
(Case T-150/18)
(2018/C 161/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of 19 December 2017 in so far as it imposes a deduction from the irrevocable payment commitments subscribed with the Single Resolution Fund, national resolution funds and national Common Equity Tier I deposit guarantee schemes, on an individual, sub-consolidated and consolidated basis, and in particular paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3:










—


order the ECB to pay all the costs.





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 the contested decision lacks a legal basis in that the ECB made use of its supervisory powers to impose a measure of general scope that falls within the competence of the legislature and exceeded its powers under Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB made an interpretation contrary to the legislative intent of the EU legislation authorising credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments in order to fulfil part of their obligations vis-à-vis the national resolution funds, the Single Resolution Fund and the national deposit guarantee schemes, thus rendering the relevant provisions ineffective. The ECB, it is claimed, also based its decision on a misreading of the EU and national legal transposition framework applicable to irrevocable payment commitments.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on an error of assessment and infringes the principle of good administration.
Case C-76/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties — Article 30 TFEU — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Charge applied to exported petroleum products — Charge not passed on to the consumer — Tax burden for the taxpayer — Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge having equivalent effect, consumer, customs drawback, customs duties, distribution of the tax burden, export (EU), petroleum product, taxpayer








C_2018142EN.01001302.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/13





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice
(Case C-76/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties - Article 30 TFEU - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Charge applied to exported petroleum products - Charge not passed on to the consumer - Tax burden for the taxpayer - Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer))
(2018/C 142/18)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu

Defendants: Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 30 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the taxpayer, who in fact pays the charge having an equivalent effect contrary to that article, must be able to obtain reimbursement of the sums which it has paid by way of that charge, even in a situation where the payment mechanism for the charge has been designed in national legislation so that the charge is passed on to the consumer.


(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Case T-629/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01004501.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/45





Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)
(Case T-629/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 142/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 (Case R 597/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas and Shoe Branding Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case T-144/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, guarantee, payment








C_2018161EN.01005701.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/57





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB
(Case T-144/18)
(2018/C 161/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and 69 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendants: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;










—


order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8803 — Michelin/Sumitomo/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electronics industry, energy production, iron and steel industry, mechanical engineering, merger control, pneumatic tyre, wholesale trade








C_2018077EN.01000101.xml










1.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8803 — Michelin/Sumitomo/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 77/01)
On 23 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 32018M8803. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-145/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, guarantee, payment








C_2018161EN.01005702.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/57





Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB
(Case T-145/18)
(2018/C 161/66)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and 37 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;










—


order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.
Case T-316/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Justification for the public contribution — Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 — Time-limit not respected)
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Lower Silesia province, financial aid, information technology industry, innovation, public financing, regional aid, regional development








C_2018142EN.01004101.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/41





Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-316/15) (1)

((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Justification for the public contribution - Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 - Time-limit not respected))
(2018/C 142/52)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, D. Recchia and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 2230 of 31 March 2015 refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at the IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ under Priority Axis No 4 of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018077EN.01000501.xml










1.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 February 2018
(2018/C 77/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2214 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,72 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4465 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88415 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0923 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1520 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6153 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,418 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,93 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1781 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6630 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6451 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5637 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5608 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,5595 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6905 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6162 




KRW


South Korean won


1 320,25 




ZAR


South African rand


14,3677 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7285 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4505 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 793,03 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7930 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,641 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,7540 




THB


Thai baht


38,389 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9615 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9437 




INR


Indian rupee


79,6230 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.