do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of open competitions
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), food inspection, food safety, public health








C_2018097EN.01000801.xml










15.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 97/8





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
(2018/C 97/04)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:






 


ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC HEALTH (AD 6):






 


EPSO/AD/340/18 — Health and food safety — audit, inspection and evaluation










 


EPSO/AD/341/18 — Food safety — policy and legislation








The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 97 A of 15 March 2018.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case C-104/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Recovery and recycling of waste — National environmental fund contribution — National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration — ‘Polluter-pays’ principle — Status of polluter)
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: packaging product, pre-packaging, prevention of pollution, waste management








C_2018166EN.01001601.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/16





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-104/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Recovery and recycling of waste - National environmental fund contribution - National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration - ‘Polluter-pays’ principle - Status of polluter))
(2018/C 166/20)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Cali Esprou SRL

Defendant: Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste and the ‘polluter-pays’ principle which it implements do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a contribution on an economic operator which does not make any alteration to the packaging which it places on the market, calculated on the basis of the difference in weight between, on the one hand, the quantity of packaging waste corresponding to the minimum targets for energy recovery and recovery by recycling and the quantity of packaging waste actually recovered or recycled.


(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Case T-130/17: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, single market








C_2018166EN.01003101.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/31





Order of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
(Case T-130/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 166/40)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57), from the rules on third-party access and tariff regulation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene.










3.


Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.










4.


The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.










5.


Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, OPAL Gastransport GmbH & Co. KG and Gazprom Eksport LLC shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case T-211/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd — Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 — Non-imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 3(2), (3) and (5) and Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Sampling — No material injury — Manifest error of assessment — Determination of injury — Profitability of the Union industry)
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, damage, dumping, import (EU), organic acid, originating product, sampling








C_2018152EN.01002801.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/28





Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission
(Case T-211/16) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd - Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 - Non-imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 3(2), (3) and (5) and Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Sampling - No material injury - Manifest error of assessment - Determination of injury - Profitability of the Union industry))
(2018/C 152/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy), Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Distillerie Mazzari SpA (Sant’Agata sul Santerno, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy) (represented by: A. Bochon, lawyer, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 of 9 February 2016 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd (OJ 2016 L 33, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018097EN.01000201.xml










15.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 97/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

14 March 2018
(2018/C 97/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2369 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,77 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4493 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88630 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1255 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1704 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5728 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,447 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2023 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6625 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,7924 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5644 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5993 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6978 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6853 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6193 




KRW


South Korean won


1 313,97 




ZAR


South African rand


14,5494 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8089 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4428 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 981,40 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8202 




PHP


Philippine peso


64,330 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,4935 




THB


Thai baht


38,505 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0244 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9785 




INR


Indian rupee


80,1975 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8795 — Brookfield/Schoeller Industries/Schoeller Allibert) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, intellectual property, investment company, merger control, packaging product, plastics, real property, renewable energy








C_2018412EN.01000201.xml










14.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8795 — Brookfield/Schoeller Industries/Schoeller Allibert)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 412/03)
On 15 March 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 32018M8795. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-151/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — Graf (Representation of a winged bull) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a winged bull — Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a griffin — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Earlier copyright protected by national law — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018152EN.01003201.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/32





Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — Graf (Representation of a winged bull)
(Case T-151/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a winged bull - Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a griffin - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Earlier copyright protected by national law - Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 152/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

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: Johann Graf (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 (Case R 165/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Marriott Worldwide and Mr Graf.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 January 2017 (Case R 165/2016-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Marriott Worldwide Corp.;










3.


Orders Mr Johann Graf to bear his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Case T-190/18: Action brought on 15 March 2018 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, renewable energy








C_2018190EN.01003301.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/33





Action brought on 15 March 2018 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission
(Case T-190/18)
(2018/C 190/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Solwindet las Lomas, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul European Commission Decision of 10 November 2017 in State aid case SA.40348 (2015/NN) — Spain — Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste; (1)











—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. The applicant alleges that there is evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of payments received by existing facilities under the previous scheme.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons regarding the alleged existence of aid in relation to the payments received by existing facilities under the previous scheme.






(1)  OJ 2017 C 442, p. 1.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 March 2018 on the draft Council decision denouncing the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros (14423/2017 – C8-0447/2017 – 2017/0241(NLE))
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Development, Committee on Fisheries, European Parliament
Subjects: Comoros, agreement (EU), fishery management, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing rights, fishing vessel, sea fishing, withdrawal from an agreement








C_2019162EN.01014301.xml










10.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/143






P8_TA(2018)0082
EU-Comoros fisheries partnership agreement: denunciation ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 March 2018 on the draft Council decision denouncing the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros (14423/2017 – C8-0447/2017 – 2017/0241(NLE))
(Consent)
(2019/C 162/25)

The European Parliament,







—


having regard to the draft Council decision (14423/2017),










—


having regard to the Partnership Agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros (1),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0447/2017),










—


having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 15 March 2018 (2) on the draft decision,










—


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 Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A8-0058/2018),












1.


Gives its consent to the denunciation 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 Union of the Comoros.






(1)  OJ L 290, 20.10.2006, p. 7.

(2)  Texts adopted of that date, P8_TA(2018)0083.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections or the measure does not constitute aid (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, control of State aid








C_2018097EN.01000101.xml










15.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 97/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections or the measure does not constitute aid
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 97/01)







Date of adoption of the decision


11.10.2017




Aid number


SA.49275 (2017/N)




Member State


Portugal




Region


PORTUGAL


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Sale of Novo Banco with additional aid in the in the context of the 2014 Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo, S.A.




Legal basis


Decreto-Lei no 298/92, de 31 de dezembro que aprova o Regime Geral das Instituições de Crédito e Sociedades Financeiras




Type of measure


Ad hoc aid


Novo Banco, S.A.




Objective


Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy




Form of aid


Other - 0




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 4 290  (in millions)




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


—




Economic sectors


Financial service activities; except insurance and pension funding




Name and address of the granting authority







Fundo de Resolução




Av. da República,57, no 2, 1050-189 - Lisboa, Portugal








Other information


To the extent that capital needs arise under severe adverse circumstances, which cannot be addressed by Lone Star or other market players, Portugal will provide limited, additional capital.




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Case C-256/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Anti-dumping — Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid — Obligation to implement — Legal basis — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 14 — Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States — Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities — Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid — Article 10 — Non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Article 221 — Time-bar — Article 236 — Repayment of duties not owed)
Date: 2018-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, customs regulations, import (EU), limitation of legal proceedings, originating product, retroactivity of a law








C_2018166EN.01000502.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
(Case C-256/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Anti-dumping - Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid - Obligation to implement - Legal basis - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 14 - Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States - Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities - Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid - Article 10 - Non-retroactivity - Community Customs Code - Article 221 - Time-bar - Article 236 - Repayment of duties not owed))
(2018/C 166/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Deichmann SE

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14.


(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.