do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40465 — Asus — Rapporteur: Sweden
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: France, Germany, computer equipment, control of restrictive practices, electronics industry, price agreement, retail trade, sanction (EU), vertical agreement








C_2018338EN.01001001.xml










21.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/10






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40465 — Asus
Rapporteur: Sweden
(2018/C 338/06)

1.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree on the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes two single and continuous infringements of Article 101 TFEU.



2.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).



3.   

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal.




(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.
Case C-451/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 10 July 2018 — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V.
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, commercial vehicle, control of restrictive practices, hire purchase, jurisdiction, motor vehicle industry, ownership, price agreement, price increase, private international law








C_2018319EN.01001501.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 10 July 2018 — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V.
(Case C-451/18)
(2018/C 319/18)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: DAF TRUCKS N.V.

Questions referred

Should the rule on special jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State has jurisdiction as the court for the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’, where:






—


the domicile or principal place of economic activity or of the financial interests of the applicant who claims to have suffered the damage or loss is in the State in question;










—


the claim brought by the applicant — which is against a single defendant, namely a truck manufacturer domiciled in another Member State — is based on an infringement [established] by [a decision of] the European Commission under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty), consisting of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases in the European Economic Area, and the decision is addressed to other parties in addition to the defendant;










—


the applicant only purchased trucks manufactured by other undertakings involved in the cartel;










—


there is nothing to show that any of the meetings that were found to restrict competition were held in the State of the court seised;










—


the applicant generally purchased the trucks — in its view, at distorted prices — in the State of the court seised, and to that end it entered into financial leasing agreements involving definite transfer of ownership with undertakings that operated in that State but, according to its own statements, the applicant negotiated directly with the vehicle dealerships, and the lessor added its own profit margin and the leasing costs onto the prices agreed by the applicant, and the right of ownership over the vehicles was transferred to the applicant on completion of the leasing agreement, when it expired?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case T-419/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, disclosure of information, euro, infringement of EU law, interest, rights of the defence








C_2018319EN.01001901.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/19






Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
(Case T-419/18)
(2018/C 319/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge) (represented by J.-P. Tran Thiet, M. Powell, J. Jourdan and J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision in so far as it rejects the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against Commission Decision C(2018) 2743 final of 27 April 2018 concerning objections to the disclosure of information submitted by the applicants on the basis of Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 (OJ 2011, L 275, p. 29) on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)), the applicants put forward two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the publication of information concerning the applicants relating to discussions between traders before the infringement period breaches the presumption of innocence. In that regard, the Commission is not entitled to publish a decision containing allusions to infringing conduct that the applicants cannot challenge. The contested decision thus erred in law in rejecting the requests for confidential treatment of the applicants concerning that information.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the publication, before a ruling on the merits by the Court in Case T-113/17, Crédit agricole et Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission, of information alluding to infringing conduct by the applicants, which they dispute before the Court, constitutes an infringement of the presumption of innocence. The contested decision therefore erred in law in rejecting the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants concerning that information.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40181 — Philips — Rapporteur: Sweden
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, electronics industry, price agreement, retail trade, sanction (EU), vertical agreement








C_2018340EN.01000701.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/7






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40181 — Philips
Rapporteur: Sweden
(2018/C 340/05)

1.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree on the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU.



2.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).



3.   

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal.




(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.
Case T-104/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA (Application for interim measures — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Recovery of the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, food industry, food safety, innovation, legality, principle of proportionality, product quality, reimbursement of aid, research and development, self-employed person








C_2018301EN.01003801.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/38






Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
(Case T-104/18 R)
((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Recovery of the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
(2018/C 301/50)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the REA’s decision to seek full repayment of the grant awarded for the Food-Watch project.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018241EN.01000401.xml










10.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 241/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 July 2018
(2018/C 241/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1789 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,21 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4534 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88345 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2548 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1646 




ISK


Iceland króna


125,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4218 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,858 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,74 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3204 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6585 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,3262 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5755 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5415 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2526 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7198 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5949 




KRW


South Korean won


1 309,88 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6915 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7967 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4113 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 887,74 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7504 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,890 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,8901 




THB


Thai baht


39,022 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5564 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,4356 




INR


Indian rupee


80,9585 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-514/15: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC — Documents relating to an infringement procedure — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Malta, access to EU information, infringement procedure (EU), opinion of the Commission, provision of documents








C_2018328EN.01004701.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/47






Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission
(Case T-514/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC - Documents relating to an infringement procedure - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
(2018/C 328/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by P. Hoffman, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission Decisions GESTDEM 2015/1291 of 12 June 2015 and of 17 July 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to the detailed opinions delivered, respectively, by the Commission and the Republic of Malta in the course of notification procedure 2014/537/PL.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.










3.


The Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Case T-430/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: airline, airport, competition, misuse of a right, organisation of transport, transport infrastructure, transport planning








C_2018319EN.01002101.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/21






Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission
(Case T-430/18)
(2018/C 319/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: American Airlines, Inc. (Fort Worth, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Poitras, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Wileur, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Grandfathering Approval Decision (Decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018);










—


order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs; and










—


making any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that that the European Commission committed both errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in adopting decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018 in which the Commission determined that Delta was entitled to acquire grandfathering rights over the slots made available by American Airlines under the commitments submitted in Case M.6607 (the ‘Commitments’).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in applying the wrong legal standard for the acquisition of grandfathering rights under the Commitments.
The applicant submits that in assessing whether Delta had made ‘appropriate use’ of the slots pursuant to the Commitments, the Commission decided that the only analysis to be undertaken was to verify that Delta was not in a situation of ‘misuse’. The applicants further puts forward that, contrary to the Commission’s position, an examination of the wording, context and objective of the Commitments leads to the conclusion that ‘absence of misuse’ is not relevant, and that the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘appropriate use’ in the Commitments would have required the Commission to verify whether the use of the slots was ‘in accordance with the bid’ that Delta formally submitted to receive the slots.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in determining that Delta complied with the ‘appropriate use’ requirement.
The applicant submits that since Delta chose to depart from its bid, the Commission would have been required to determine whether this departure and the ultimate level of usage of the slots could be accepted taking into account relevant economic evidence and analysis to ensure competition and therefore consumer benefits were maximized.
Case T-244/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Application for interim measures — Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Recovery of the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, deadline for payment, debt, discretionary power, financial management, financial regulation, interest, principle of proportionality








C_2018301EN.01003802.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/38






Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
(Case T-244/18 R)
((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Recovery of the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
(2018/C 301/51)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Empokiri Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 relating the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 76 282,08 plus default interest.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-427/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, reproductive health, sexuality, trade-mark law








C_2018301EN.01004401.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/44






Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)
(Case T-427/18)
(2018/C 301/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Application No 16 886 541

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2603/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40469 — Denon &amp; Marantz — Rapporteur: Sweden
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, control of restrictive practices, electronic device, price agreement, price increase, retail trade, sanction (EU), vertical agreement








C_2018335EN.01000301.xml










20.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/3






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40469 — Denon & Marantz
Rapporteur: Sweden
(2018/C 335/03)

1.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree on the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes two single and continuous infringements of Article 101 TFEU.



2.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).



3.   

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal.




(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40182 — Pioneer — Rapporteur: Sweden
Date: 2018-07-10
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, electronics industry, price agreement, price increase, retail trade, sanction (EU), vertical agreement








C_2018338EN.01001601.xml










21.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/16






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40182 — Pioneer
Rapporteur: Sweden
(2018/C 338/09)

1.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree on the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).



3.   

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal.




(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.