do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-453/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — Bondora AS v Carlos V. C.
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer credit, consumer protection, loan, proof, unfair terms of contract








C_2018381EN.01000301.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — Bondora AS v Carlos V. C.
(Case C-453/18)
(2018/C 381/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendant: Carlos V. C.

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the case-law interpreting that directive, to be construed as meaning that that article of the directive precludes a national provision, like [point 2 of] the 23rd final provision of Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure), which provides that it is not necessary to submit documents with the application for a European order for payment and that, where documents are submitted, they will be ruled inadmissible?










2.


Is Article 7(2)(e) of Regulation No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 (2) to be construed as meaning that that provision does not preclude a creditor institution from being required to submit documents substantiating its claim based on a consumer loan entered into between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, where the court considers it essential to examine the documents in order to determine whether there are unfair terms in the contract between the parties, thereby complying with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the case-law interpreting that directive?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).
Case T-644/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements — Partial refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Exception concerning the protection of legal advice — Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, international negotiations, international relations, legal aid, negotiation of an agreement (EU), right to justice, trade agreement (EU)








C_2018301EN.01002701.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/27






Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-644/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Exception concerning the protection of legal advice - Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))
(2018/C 301/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4286 final of 1 July 2016, refusing access to certain documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case T-134/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aerated drink, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018319EN.01002702.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/27






Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)
(Case T-134/18) (1)

(2018/C 319/35)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8911 — Samvardhana Motherson Automotive Systems/Reydel Automotive) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2018250EN.01000101.xml










17.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8911 — Samvardhana Motherson Automotive Systems/Reydel Automotive)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 250/01)
On 11 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 32018M8911. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-154/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘E LATS’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 311(1)(1) — Special arrangements for second-hand goods — Definition of ‘second-hand goods’ — Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader — Processing of those goods after sale — Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones — Concept of ‘precious metals or precious stones’)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, precious metal, precious stones, used goods








C_2018319EN.01001001.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/10






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘E LATS’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-154/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 311(1)(1) - Special arrangements for second-hand goods - Definition of ‘second-hand goods’ - Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader - Processing of those goods after sale - Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones - Concept of ‘precious metals or precious stones’))
(2018/C 319/11)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SIA ‘E LATS’

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘second-hand goods’ does not cover used goods containing precious metals or precious stones if those goods are no longer capable of performing their initial function and have retained only the functionalities inherent in those metals and stones, which is for the national court to determine taking into account all the objective circumstances relevant in each individual case.


(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8996 — GIC Group/FPL/JustGroup/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, property market








C_2018243EN.01001301.xml










11.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8996 — GIC Group/FPL/JustGroup/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 243/08)

1.   
On 4 July 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:






—


Reco Jedi Private Limited (‘Reco’, Singapore), controlled by GIC (Realty) Private Limited (‘GIC’, Singapore),










—


Frasers Property Ventures II Pte. Ltd. (‘FPV’, Singapore), controlled by Frasers Property Limited (‘FPL’, Singapore),










—


JustGroup Holdings Pte. Ltd. (‘JustGroup’, Singapore),










—


JustCo Holdings Pte. Ltd. (‘JustCo’, Singapore).




Reco, FPL and JustGroup acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of JustCo.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for GIC: GIC is the holding company for real estate investments made on behalf of the Government of Singapore,
—   for FPL: FPL owns, develops and manages a diverse, integrated portfolio of properties,
—   for JustGroup and JustCo: the development and management of co-working spaces.


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.8996 — GIC Group/FPL/JustGroup/JV
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-769/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018328EN.01004902.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/49






Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)
(Case T-769/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark - No need to adjudicate))
(2018/C 328/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH (St. Gallen, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Overhage and R. Böhm, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: André Tanner (Schindellegi, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 August 2017 (Case R 1596/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between André Tanner and roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case T-16/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — APF v Parliament (Institutional law — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political party — Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded — Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee — Financial Regulation — Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Proportionality — Abuse of power)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European party, abuse of power, financial aid, foundation, guarantee, party financing, principle of proportionality








C_2018301EN.01002901.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/29






Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — APF v Parliament
(Case T-16/17) (1)

((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political party - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Abuse of power))
(2018/C 301/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-15 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-707/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Enoitalia SpA v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ANTONIO RUBINI — Earlier EU figurative mark RUTINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2018301EN.01002702.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/27






Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Enoitalia SpA v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)
(Case T-707/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ANTONIO RUBINI - Earlier EU figurative mark RUTINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 301/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Enoitalia SpA (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina).

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 (Case R 1085/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas and Enoitalia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Enoitalia SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on — Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Brazil on fodder plant seed-producing crops and cereal seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of fodder plant seed and cereal seed produced in Brazil, and as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Moldova on cereal seed-producing crops, vegetable seed-producing crops and oil and fibre plant seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of cereal seed, vegetable seed and oil and fibre plant seed produced in Moldova (COM(2017) 643 final — 2017/0297 (COD))
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Brazil, Moldova, agrarian law, crop production, import (EU), quality control of agricultural products, quality standard, seed




C_2018367EN.01012001.xml










10.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/120






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2003/17/EC as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Brazil on fodder plant seed-producing crops and cereal seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of fodder plant seed and cereal seed produced in Brazil, and as regards the equivalence of field inspections carried out in Moldova on cereal seed-producing crops, vegetable seed-producing crops and oil and fibre plant seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of cereal seed, vegetable seed and oil and fibre plant seed produced in Moldova
(COM(2017) 643 final — 2017/0297 (COD))
(2018/C 367/26)






Consultation


Council of the European Union, 18.6.2018




Legal basis


Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted at plenary


11.7.2018




Plenary session No


536




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


166/0/4




On 18 June 2018, the Council decided to submit for consultation to the European Economic and Social Committee the compromise text 9299/18 approved by the Permanent Representatives Committee at its meeting of 27 April 2018, following the amendment of the legal basis to refer to Article 43(2) TFEU.
Since the Committee had already set out its views on the contents of the original proposal in opinion EESC 2018/00043 (NAT/726), adopted on 14 February 2018 (*1), it decided at its 536th plenary session, held on 11 and 12 July 2018 (meeting of 11 July), by 166 votes to none with 4 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject, but to refer to the position it had taken in the abovementioned document.

Brussels, 11 July 2018.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER




(*1)  OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 76.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8968 — HIG Capital/INEOS (Baleycourt business &amp; ICT business)) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, petrochemicals








C_2018250EN.01000102.xml










17.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8968 — HIG Capital/INEOS (Baleycourt business & ICT business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 250/02)
On 11 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 32018M8968. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on — Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 as regards nominal quantities for placing on the Union market of single distilled shochu produced by pot still and bottled in Japan (COM(2018) 199 final — 2018/0097 COD)
Date: 2018-07-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: consumer information, derogation from EU law, designation of origin, distillation, labelling, market approval, packaging product, product designation, spirits








C_2018367EN.01011901.xml










10.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/119






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 as regards nominal quantities for placing on the Union market of single distilled shochu produced by pot still and bottled in Japan
(COM(2018) 199 final — 2018/0097 COD)
(2018/C 367/25)






Consultation


European Parliament, 2.5.2018
Council of the European Union, 30.4.2018




Legal basis


Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted at plenary


11.7.2018




Plenary session No


536




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


170/0/5




Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 536th plenary session of 11 and 12 July 2018 (meeting of 11 July), by 170 votes to none with five abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 11 July 2018.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER