do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-432/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2018 — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v BALEMA GmbH
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, condiment, designation of origin, originating product, product designation








C_2018427EN.01000302.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2018 — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v BALEMA GmbH
(Case C-432/18)
(2018/C 427/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena

Respondent: BALEMA GmbH

Question referred

Does the protection of the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ extend to the use of the individual non-geographical components of the term as a whole (‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’, ‘Aceto Balsamico’)? (1)



(1)  Interpretation of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (OJ 2009 L 175, p. 7).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8926 — Total/Direct Energie) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, energy production, energy supply, gas industry, gas supply, merger control, renewable energy








C_2018241EN.01000101.xml










10.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 241/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8926 — Total/Direct Energie)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 241/01)
On 2 July 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 32018M8926. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-256/17: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 2 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Sandd B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt, intervener: Koninklijke PostNL BV
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accounting system, postal charges, postal service, price control, provision of services, quality standard, universal service








C_2018341EN.01001101.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/11






Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 2 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Sandd B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt, intervener: Koninklijke PostNL BV
(Case C-256/17) (1)

(2018/C 341/15)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8997 — Whirlpool/Elica/Elica PB India Private Limited) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, cold store, economic concentration, household electrical appliance, merger control








C_2018230EN.01001201.xml










2.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/12





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8997 — Whirlpool/Elica/Elica PB India Private Limited)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 230/09)

1.   
On 25 June 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:






—


Whirlpool Corporation (‘Whirlpool’, USA), through its subsidiary Whirlpool of India Limited,










—


Elica SpA (‘Elica’, Italy),










—


Elica PB India Private Limited (‘Elica PB India’, India).




Whirlpool of India Limited acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Elica PB India Private Limited, currently majority owned by Elica.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Whirlpool is active in the manufacture and sale of a range of appliances for refrigeration, laundry, kitchen, air conditioning and water and air purification,










—


Elica is active in the manufacture and sale of kitchen appliances and the sale of air treatment devices,










—


Elica PB India is active in the manufacture and sale of certain kitchen appliances and the sale of a range of kitchen and related cooking devices in India.






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.8997 — Whirlpool/Elica/Elica PB India Private Limited
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 T-403/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (W S wellpharma shop)
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, medical device, medical research, pharmaceutical product, pharmacy, registered trade mark, research and development, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2018301EN.01004201.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/42






Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (W S wellpharma shop)
(Case T-403/18)
(2018/C 301/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Objectif Pharma (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘W S wellpharma shop’ — Application for registration No 14 494 751

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 in Case R 1448/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


refuse the EU trade mark application for all the goods and services covered;










—


order EUIPO, and Objectif Pharma if it decides to intervene in the proceedings, to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-577/17: Order of the General Court of 2 July 2018 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Authorisation for inward processing — Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers — Article 211(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Examination of the economic conditions — Scope of the Commission’s conclusions — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU production, access to EU information, confidentiality, customs regulations, customs union, inward processing, iron and steel industry








C_2018301EN.01003402.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/34






Order of the General Court of 2 July 2018 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission
(Case T-577/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Customs union - Authorisation for inward processing - Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers - Article 211(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Examination of the economic conditions - Scope of the Commission’s conclusions - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 301/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (Isbergues, France) (represented by: M. Günes, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision ostensibly contained in the minutes of the sixth meeting of the Customs Expert Group Section ‘Special Procedures other than transit’ of 2 May 2017 concluding that the essential interests of EU producers would not be adversely affected by an authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products requested by Euro-Mit Staal BV.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on Euro-Mit Staal BV’s application to intervene.










3.


In addition to bearing its own costs, the European Commission shall pay the costs incurred by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo.










4.


Euro-Mit Staal BV shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case C-436/18 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2018 by Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v European Commission
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), interpretation of the law, originating product, plate, steel








C_2018341EN.01000701.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/7






Appeal brought on 2 July 2018 by Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v European Commission
(Case C-436/18 P)
(2018/C 341/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15, Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd. v European Commission;










—


annul Commission lmplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 (1) of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China insofar as it concerns the appellant; and










—


order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-675/15.




Alternatively,






—


refer the case back to the General Court; and










—


reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

ln support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.
First, the contested judgment illegally interpreted the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community by reading into that provision a condition that is not in the text of that provision when selecting the analogue country.
Second, by holding that adjustments to the normal value are in principle not possible when applying Article 2(7)(a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the contested judgment violated this provision.


(1)  OJ 2015, L 224, p. 10.

(2)  OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.
Case C-439/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2018 — OH v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, collective agreement, equal treatment, gender equality, part-time employment, reduction of working time








C_2018373EN.01000502.xml










15.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2018 — OH v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria
(Case C-439/18)
(2018/C 373/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: OH

Respondent: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Question referred

Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)? (2)



(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Case C-433/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, enforcement of ruling, jurisdiction, public international law, rights of the defence








C_2018352EN.01001801.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants
(Case C-433/18)
(2018/C 352/23)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ML

Defendant: OÜ Aktiva Finants

Questions referred







1.


Is the procedure for granting leave for further consideration which is part of the national system of appeals compatible with the effective rights of appeal that are guaranteed for both parties in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) where an appeal is lodged against the decision of a district court which relates to the recognition or enforcement of a judgment under Regulation No 44/2001?










2.


In the procedure for granting leave for further consideration, are the requirements in relation to a procedure in contradictory matters within the meaning of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 satisfied if the respondent is not heard in relation to the appeal before the decision on leave is taken? Are they satisfied if the respondent is heard before the decision on leave for further consideration is taken?










3.


Does the fact that the appellant may be not only the party who has applied for enforcement and whose application has been refused, but also the party against whom enforcement has been applied for when that application has been allowed, have any significance for the above interpretation?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case T-400/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: company in difficulties, equal treatment, financial instrument, financial legislation, financing plan, fund (EU), principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2018301EN.01004101.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/41






Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB
(Case T-400/18)
(2018/C 301/55)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 12 April 2018 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB. (1)



(1)  OJ 2017 C 277, p. 51.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8883 — PPF Group/Telenor Target Companies) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: biotechnology, economic concentration, farming sector, financial services, investment company, merger control, multinational enterprise, real property, retail trade, telecommunications








C_2018230EN.01000901.xml










2.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8883 — PPF Group/Telenor Target Companies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 230/07)

1.   
On 22 June 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:






—


PPF Group N.V. (‘PPF’, Netherlands),










—


Telenor Bulgaria EAD (Bulgaria),










—


Telenor Magyarország Zrt (Hungary),










—


Telenor Real Estate Hungary Zrt (Hungary),










—


Telenor Common Operation Zrt (Hungary),










—


Telenor d.o.o. Podgorica (Montenegro),










—


Telenor d.o.o. Beograd (Serbia), together the ‘Target Companies’.




PPF acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of each of the Target Companies.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


PPF is a large multinational finance and investment group focusing on financial services, consumer finance, telecommunications, biotechnology, retail services, real estate and agriculture.










—


The Target Companies are active primarily in telecommunications, acting as mobile operators in the respective countries of their incorporation for which they hold the required telecommunications licenses.






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.



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.8883 — PPF Group/Telenor Target Companies
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: +32 229-64301




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’).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018230EN.01000401.xml










2.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 June 2018
(2018/C 230/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1658 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,04 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4525 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88605 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4530 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1569 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5115 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,020 




HUF


Hungarian forint


329,77 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3732 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6631 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,3385 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5787 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5442 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1468 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7247 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5896 




KRW


South Korean won


1 296,72 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0484 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7170 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3860 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 654,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7080 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,174 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1582 




THB


Thai baht


38,565 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4876 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8817 




INR


Indian rupee


79,8130 






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