do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-179/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Belgium) lodged on 7 March 2018 — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, national service, pension scheme, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU)








C_2018182EN.01001201.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Belgium) lodged on 7 March 2018 — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst
(Case C-179/18)
(2018/C 182/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ronny Rohart

Defendant: Federale Pensioendienst

Question referred

Must the principle of sincere cooperation as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1) of the Council of 29 February 1968, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State not permitting the military service which a worker has carried out in a Member State to be taken into account in the calculation of that worker’s retirement pension on the basis of his performance in that Member State, because at the time of his military service and subsequently as well, the person concerned was uninterruptedly an official of the European Union, and consequently, does not satisfy the conditions for equivalence as laid down in the legislation of that Member State?


(1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ 1968, L 56, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8763 — KKR/Tekfor) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2018087EN.01000501.xml










7.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8763 — KKR/Tekfor)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 87/04)






1.


On 26 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:






—


KKR & Co. L.P. (‘KKR’, USA),










—


Tekfor Global Holdings Ltd (‘Tekfor’, the UK), controlled by Amtek Global Technologies Pte Ltd.




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










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KKR: KKR is a global investment firm which offers a broad range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and provides capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients,
—   for Tekfor: Tekfor is a limited liability company registered in England that manufactures and supplies components and assemblies for automotive transmissions, engines, drivelines, fasteners, and other special applications.










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.8763 — KKR/Tekfor
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-31/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the generation of electricity — Obligation to exempt — Article 15(1)(c) — Energy products used for combined heat and power generation — Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation — Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy production, energy-generating product, environmental tax, heating, natural gas, tax exemption








C_2018161EN.01001102.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
(Case C-31/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Energy products used for the generation of electricity - Obligation to exempt - Article 15(1)(c) - Energy products used for combined heat and power generation - Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation - Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity))
(2018/C 161/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the compulsory exemption provided for in that provision applies to energy products used for electricity generation, when such products are used for the combined generation of electricity and heat within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Case T-624/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Electa una via — Rights of the defence — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Political rights — Equal treatment — Misuse of power — Independence of the Members — Error of fact — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, abuse of power, debt, equal treatment, parliamentary allowance, political rights, principle of proportionality, proof, rights of the defence








C_2018142EN.01004402.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/44





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament
(Case T-624/16) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Power of the Secretary-General - Electa una via - Rights of the defence - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Political rights - Equal treatment - Misuse of power - Independence of the Members - Error of fact - Proportionality))
(2018/C 142/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: N. Fakiroff, then F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 1 July 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 275 984,23 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 5 July 2016 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case C-651/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Maternity benefit — Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months — Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution — National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis — Restriction on freedom of movement for workers — Principle of sincere cooperation)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, income, maternity benefit, servant (EU), social security legislation








C_2018161EN.01001101.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/11





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra
(Case C-651/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Maternity benefit - Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months - Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution - National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis - Restriction on freedom of movement for workers - Principle of sincere cooperation))
(2018/C 161/12)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DW

Defendant: Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings that, for the purposes of determining the average contribution basis when calculating the amount of maternity benefit, equates the months of the reference period in which the person concerned worked in an EU institution and was not insured in that Member State with a period of unemployment and applies to them the average contribution basis in that Member State, which has the effect of substantially reducing the amount of the maternity benefit granted to that person in comparison with the amount to which she would have been entitled had she been gainfully employed in that Member State alone.


(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case T-162/18: Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Beko v EUIPO — Acer (ALTUS)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, recording equipment, registered trade mark, sound reproduction equipment, trade-mark law








C_2018152EN.01005801.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/58





Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Beko v EUIPO — Acer (ALTUS)
(Case T-162/18)
(2018/C 152/68)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Tritton, barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Acer, Inc. (Taipei City, Taiwan).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ALTUS — Application for registration No 6 490 809

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1991/2016-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and remit the matter back to EUIPO to reconsider the request for suspension;










—


order the suspension of the proceedings;










—


order EUIPO to pay its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


EUIPO was wrong not to grant the request for suspension of the opposition pending the outcome of the Slovakian proceedings. In particular, it is submitted that the reasoning of the Fifth Board of Appeal was manifestly flawed and/or unreasonable and/or failed to address the ‘the whole picture’ and accordingly was not in a position to weigh properly the various interests involved and/or amounted to a misuse of powers.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018087EN.01000201.xml










7.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 March 2018
(2018/C 87/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2411 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,84 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4494 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89165 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1835 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1626 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6130 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,380 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1815 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6598 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,7013 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5840 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5993 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,7218 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6985 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6325 




KRW


South Korean won


1 316,92 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5449 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8538 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4275 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 030,37 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8322 




PHP


Philippine peso


64,360 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,8699 




THB


Thai baht


38,871 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9927 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1660 




INR


Indian rupee


80,5845 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-6/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA — Earlier international figurative mark LABELL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018142EN.01004802.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/48





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)
(Case T-6/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA - Earlier international figurative mark LABELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 142/64)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and M. del Mar Baldares, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ITM Entreprises SAS (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 (Case R 690/2016-2) relating to opposition proceedings between ITM Entreprises and Equivalenza Manufactory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 October 2016 (Case R 690/2016-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by, Equivalenza Manufactory, SL in the proceedings before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-140/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 –Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Authority of the Secretary-General — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Equal treatment)
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, abuse of power, debt, equal treatment, parliamentary allowance, proof








C_2018142EN.01004202.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/42





Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 –Le Pen v Parliament
(Case T-140/16) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Authority of the Secretary-General - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Error of fact - Equal treatment))
(2018/C 142/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented initially by M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, subsequently by M. Ceccaldi, and finally by F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 relating to the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320 026,23 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance and of the related debit note of 4 February 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8802 — KKR/Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control








C_2018087EN.01000301.xml










7.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8802 — KKR/Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 87/03)






1.


On 27 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:






—


KKR & Co. LP (‘KKR’, USA), which manages and advises private equity and other investment funds,










—


Unilever NV’s and Unilever plc’s companies and businesses in the baking, cooking and spreads business (Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business, the Netherlands).




KKR acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of securities.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for KKR: global investment firm which offers a broad range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and provides capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients,
—   for Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business: manufacture and sale of plant-based nutrition products including butter, margarine and other spreads, melanges, dairy cream alternatives and vegetable oils in Europe and worldwide.










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.8802 — KKR/Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business
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.