do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-847/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — POA (COWBOYS HALLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark COWBOYS HALLOUMI — Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018352EN.01003301.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/33






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — POA (COWBOYS HALLOUMI)
(Case T-847/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark COWBOYS HALLOUMI - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 352/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pagkypriosorganismos ageladotrofon (POA) (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against an appeal brought before the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2781/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus et POA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-275/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Curto v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Error of assessment — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable period — Refusal to disclose reports drawn up by the Advisory Committee)
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, fundamental rights, indemnification, legal aid, psychological harassment, staff regulations








C_2018341EN.01001501.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/15






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Curto v Parliament
(Case T-275/17) (1)

((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Error of assessment - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period - Refusal to disclose reports drawn up by the Advisory Committee))
(2018/C 341/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Michela Curto (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, E. Taneva and M. Rantala, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of the decision of the European Parliament, of 30 June 2016, by which the Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance submitted by the applicant on 14 April 2014 and (ii) compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that authority’s disregard of the duty to provide assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inter alia on account of the excessive duration of the procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 30 June 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance submitted by Ms Michela Curto on 14 April 2014;










2.


Orders the Parliament to pay Ms Curto, in respect of the non-material harm suffered, the sum of EUR 10 000, together with default interest from the date of delivery of the present judgment at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations;










3.


Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Case C-63/17: Order of the President of the Court of 13 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Limoges — France) — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, credit policy








C_2018341EN.01001003.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/10






Order of the President of the Court of 13 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Limoges — France) — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl
(Case C-63/17) (1)

(2018/C 341/14)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8677 — Siemens/Alstom) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: automation, economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control, rail transport, railway industry








C_2018270EN.01000101.xml










1.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/1






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8677 — Siemens/Alstom)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 270/01)
On 13 July 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No M.8677 — Siemens/Alstom, to the following 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’).
Case T-733/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Banque postale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, banking policy, banking supervision, discretionary power, financial control, financial legislation








C_2018352EN.01003001.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/30






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Banque postale v ECB
(Case T-733/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - Refusal of the ECB to grant authorisation to the applicant to exclude exposures meeting certain conditions from the calculation of the leverage ratio - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))
(2018/C 352/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume and L. Coudray, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Central Bank Decision ECB/SSM/2016-96950066U5XAAIRCPA78/16 of 24 August 2016, taken pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016-96950066U5XAAIRCPA78/16 of 24 August 2016;










2.


Orders the ECB to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.
Case T-825/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Pallas Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Pallas Halloumi — Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018352EN.01003202.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/32






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Pallas Halloumi)
(Case T-825/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Pallas Halloumi - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 352/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against an appeal brought before the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 2065/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-72/16: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, retail trade, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2018381EN.01003103.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/31






Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)
(Case T-72/16) (1)

(2018/C 381/38)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Case T-612/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — PS v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Social security — Accident at work — Total and permanent invalidity — Occupational origin of the disease — System for the insurance of accidents at work and occupational diseases — Contributions to the pension scheme — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Liability — Non-material harm)
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, indemnification, occupational accident, occupational accident insurance, occupational disease, staff regulations, supplementary pension








C_2018341EN.01001401.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/14






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — PS v EIB
(Case T-612/16) (1)

((Civil service - EIB staff - Social security - Accident at work - Total and permanent invalidity - Occupational origin of the disease - System for the insurance of accidents at work and occupational diseases - Contributions to the pension scheme - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Liability - Non-material harm))
(2018/C 341/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PS (represented by: N. Lhoëst and G. Cludts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams, E. Raimond and G. Faedo initially, then T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant since November 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-42/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018245EN.01000201.xml










13.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

12 July 2018
(2018/C 245/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1658 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4554 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88263 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3350 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1642 




ISK


Iceland króna


125,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4443 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,938 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,28 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3272 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6588 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,6364 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5778 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5369 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1494 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7240 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5889 




KRW


South Korean won


1 312,52 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6488 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7780 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3975 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 766,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7089 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,378 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,4169 




THB


Thai baht


38,775 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5049 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,0857 




INR


Indian rupee


79,8805 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-432/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Palo v Commission
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, severance pay








C_2018319EN.01002301.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/23






Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Palo v Commission
(Case T-432/18)
(2018/C 319/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Peeter Palo (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the defendant’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


annul the defendant’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 11 December 2017 directed against the abovementioned decision;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to bear all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.
Case T-439/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial electric machinery, maintenance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018328EN.01005301.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/53






Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)
(Case T-439/18)
(2018/C 328/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sintokogio Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: V. Dalichau, S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ProAssist — Application for registration No 1 327 746

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2018 in Case R 2341/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;










—


alternatively amend the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the Principle of equal treatment and sound administration, Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9009 — KKR/Casual Dining BidCo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2018245EN.01000401.xml










13.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9009 — KKR/Casual Dining BidCo)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 245/04)

1.   
On 5 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, United States),










—


Casual Dining BidCo Limited (‘Casual Dining’, United Kingdom).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned by the notified concentration are as follows:






—


KKR is a global investment firm which offers a broad range of alternative asset management services to public and private market investors and provides capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and clients.










—


Casual Dining operates restaurants in the United Kingdom and abroad.






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.9009 — KKR/Casual Dining BidCo
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.