do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8891 — Puig/BSH/Noustique) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2018284EN.01000102.xml










13.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8891 — Puig/BSH/Noustique)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 284/02)
On 18 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 32018M8891. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-237/18: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Pauline Stiernon and Others v Etat belge, SPF Santé publique, Communauté française de Belgique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom to choose an occupation — Articles 20, 21 and 45 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15 — Profession of psychomotor therapist not included in the national list of allied health professions)
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, health care profession, right to work








C_2018399EN.01001701.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/17






Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Pauline Stiernon and Others v Etat belge, SPF Santé publique, Communauté française de Belgique
(Case C-237/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom of movement for workers - Freedom to choose an occupation - Articles 20, 21 and 45 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15 - Profession of psychomotor therapist not included in the national list of allied health professions))
(2018/C 399/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Pauline Stiernon, Marion Goraguer, Muriel Buccarello, Clémentine Vasseur, Manon Pirotton, Anissa Quotb

Defendants: Etat belge, SPF Santé publique, Communauté française de Belgique

Operative part of the order

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, legislation of a Member State establishing a list of allied health professions that does not include the profession of psychomotor therapist in that list, even though an undergraduate degree in psychomotor therapy has been established in that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8938 — LG Electronics/ZKW Holding/Mommert Gewerbeimmobilien) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, household electrical appliance, merger control, motor vehicle industry, signalling device








C_2018260EN.01000202.xml










24.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8938 — LG Electronics/ZKW Holding/Mommert Gewerbeimmobilien)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 260/03)
On 18 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 32018M8938. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8939 — Liberty House Group/Aluminium Dunkerque) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, iron and steel industry, mechanical engineering, merger control








C_2018284EN.01000101.xml










13.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8939 — Liberty House Group/Aluminium Dunkerque)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 284/01)
On 18 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 32018M8939. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-438/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, cultural event, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018319EN.01002302.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/23






Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)
(Case T-438/18)
(2018/C 319/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pareto Trading Co., Inc. (Carlstadt, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, C. Martínez-Tercero Molina, V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bikor Elżbieta Korbut (Gdańsk, Poland) and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind (Gdańsk)

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: Application for European Union word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH — European Union trade mark No 9 561 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2018 in Case R 1826/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare that the costs in this proceedings shall be borne by the Defendant, including all the costs which the Applicant has incurred before both the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have resulted in the present Application.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-468/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța (Romania) lodged on 18 July 2018 — R v P
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child, dependant, divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, maintenance obligation, matrimonial law, parental authority, parental responsibility








C_2018381EN.01000501.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța (Romania) lodged on 18 July 2018 — R v P
(Case C-468/18)
(2018/C 381/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: R

Defendant: P

Questions referred







1.


In the context of an action before the courts of a Member State which comprises three heads of claim concerning (i) the divorce of the parents of a minor child, (ii) parental responsibility for that minor child and (iii) maintenance obligations with regard to that minor child, may Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 of Regulation No 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court seised of the divorce petition, being also a court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident and the court before which the defendant has entered an appearance, has jurisdiction to give a decision on the claim concerning maintenance obligations in respect of the minor child, notwithstanding its finding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility for the minor child, or may the claim concerning maintenance obligations be decided only by a court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim concerning parental responsibility for the minor child?










2.


In the circumstances relating to the jurisdiction of the national court described above, is the claim concerning maintenance obligations with regard to the minor child ancillary to the claim concerning parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of Regulation No 4/2009?










3.


In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, is it in the best interests of the child for a court of a Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(a) of Regulation No 4/2009 to decide the claim concerning the maintenance obligations of the parents toward the minor child of the marriage of which the dissolution is sought, notwithstanding the fact that that court has found itself to have no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility and has held, with the force of res judicata, that the conditions laid down by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, are not fulfilled? (2)







(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018251EN.01000801.xml










18.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/8





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 July 2018
(2018/C 251/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1707 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,81 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4540 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88725 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3003 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1648 




ISK


Iceland króna


124,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4875 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,875 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3007 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6617 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,6613 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5810 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5403 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1888 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7191 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5941 




KRW


South Korean won


1 319,73 




ZAR


South African rand


15,5376 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8324 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3915 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 822,96 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7267 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,495 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1793 




THB


Thai baht


38,949 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5281 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1732 




INR


Indian rupee


80,1405 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-471/18 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2018 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15, Esso Raffinage v European Chemicals Agency
Date: 2018-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, admissibility, chemical product, documentation, environmental protection, legal basis, marketing standard, ministry, powers of the institutions (EU), public health








C_2018399EN.01002102.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/21






Appeal brought on 18 July 2018 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15, Esso Raffinage v European Chemicals Agency
(Case C-471/18 P)
(2018/C 399/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: P. Klappich and C. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Esso Raffinage, European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15;










—


dismiss the action;










—


order the applicant to pay the costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds:
First, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in attributing legal significance to the letter entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’ which ECHA addressed to the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing on 1 April 2015 (‘the letter’) and classifying it as an act which could be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU.
Secondly, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) and disregarding Article 22(2) of the REACH Regulation.
Thirdly, the appellant does not share the General Court’s view on the general division of areas of competence between Member States and ECHA, according to which ECHA alone is competent to decide whether registration information complies with the REACH requirements.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).