do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9008 — Elixia Holding/TryghedsGruppen/Fitness DK Holding) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, insurance company, investment company, merger control, sports facilities








C_2018302EN.01000102.xml










28.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9008 — Elixia Holding/TryghedsGruppen/Fitness DK Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 302/02)
On 27 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 32018M9008. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-492/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, arrest, detention before trial, fundamental rights, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2018381EN.01000701.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC
(Case C-492/18)
(2018/C 381/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: TC

Question referred

In a case in which:






—


the executing Member State has transposed Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) in such a way that the detention pending surrender of the requested person must in all cases be suspended once the 90-day period for taking a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has expired and










—


the courts of that Member State have interpreted domestic law as meaning that the decision period is suspended as soon as the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or to await the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling by another executing judicial authority or to postpone the decision on surrender owing to a real danger of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in the issuing Member State,




does the maintenance of the detention pending surrender of a requested person who represents a flight risk once that detention has continued for more than 90 days after that person’s arrest contravene Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case C-494/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, claim, consumer protection, debt, proof, unfair terms of contract








C_2018381EN.01000801.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY
(Case C-494/18)
(2018/C 381/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendant: XY

Questions referred







1.


Is national legislation such as section 4 of [Final Provision] 23 of the [Spanish Civil Procedure Act], which does not permit a contract or an itemisation of the debt to be provided or required in a claim in which the defendant is a consumer and where there is evidence that the sums being claimed could be based on unfair terms, compatible with Article 38 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], Article 6(1) [TEU] and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive [93/13/EEC]? (1)











2.


Is it compatible with Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation 1896/2006, establishing a European payment order procedure, (2) to require the applicant, in a claim against a consumer, to specify the itemisation of the debt he is claiming in section 11 of standard form A? Is it also compatible with that provision to require that the content of the contractual terms on the basis of which the applicant is making a claim against a consumer, beyond the principal subject matter of the contract, be reproduced in section 11 in order to assess whether they are unfair?










3.


If the answer to question two is negative, can the CJEU state whether it is permissible, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, to assess ex officio, prior to the grant of a European payment order, whether unfair terms are being applied in a contract with a consumer, and the legal basis on which that assessment may be carried out?










4.


In the event that it is not possible to assess ex officio, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, the existence of unfair terms prior to granting a European payment order, the CJEU is asked to rule on the validity of the Regulation referred to and on whether it is contrary to Article 38 of the Charter and Article 6(1) [TEU].






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (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).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018265EN.01001301.xml










27.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 265/13






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 July 2018
(2018/C 265/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1716 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,91 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4517 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88860 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2738 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1616 




ISK


Iceland króna


122,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5455 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,647 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2835 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6318 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,6454 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5792 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5287 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1949 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7186 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5943 




KRW


South Korean won


1 311,82 




ZAR


South African rand


15,4559 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9464 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4025 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 935,48 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7600 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,559 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,8560 




THB


Thai baht


39,038 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3523 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9020 




INR


Indian rupee


80,4480 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8880 — Oetker/Henkell/Freixenet) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agro-industry, distributor, economic concentration, maritime transport, merger control, publisher, wine








C_2018355EN.01000101.xml










4.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8880 — Oetker/Henkell/Freixenet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 355/01)
On 27 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 32018M8880. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-36/18: Order of the President of the Court of 27 July 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area management, coastal protection, common fisheries policy, conservation of resources, management of resources, maritime area, maritime transport








C_2018399EN.01003101.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/31






Order of the President of the Court of 27 July 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-36/18) (1)

(2018/C 399/40)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Case C-491/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Mennica Wrocławska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, invoicing, principle of proportionality, tax relief








C_2020019EN.01000601.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Mennica Wrocławska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
(Case C-491/18)
(2020/C 19/07)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Mennica Wrocławska sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
By order of 13 December 2018, the Court (Tenth Chamber) ruled that Articles 168(a), 178(a) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding the national tax authorities from refusing to allow a taxable person the right to deduct the input value added tax due or paid for the sole reason that the invoices drawn up contain an error as to the identification of the goods which were the subject of the transactions in question, even though the taxable person had provided to the tax authorities, before those authorities took a decision in his regard, the documents and explanations necessary for determining what the actual subject matter of those transactions was and for establishing that those transactions had indeed taken place.
Corrigendum to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, 1.6.2013)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Syria, arms control, arms trade, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural gas, oil industry, removal, trade restriction








L_2018190EN.01002002.xml










27.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 190/20







Corrigendum to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 147 of 1 June 2013
)


On page 45, Annex II (List of entities referred to in Article 28), ‘Entities’, entry No 1 (concerning Commercial Bank of Syria), in column ‘Identifying Information’:
for:

               ‘… SWIFT/BIC: CMSY SY DA; ….’,
read:

               ‘… SWIFT/BIC: CMSYSYDA; ….’.
Case T-458/18: Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, business management, dietary product, domestic animal, pet food, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2018319EN.01002501.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/25






Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)
(Case T-458/18)
(2018/C 319/30)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and P. Gentili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘real nature’ — Application for registration No 16 660 425

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2650/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-498/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, civil liability proceedings, damages, international convention, limitation of legal proceedings, transport regulations








C_2018399EN.01002301.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-498/18)
(2018/C 399/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: ZW

Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred







1.


Can the period of two years in which to bring an action, laid down in Article 35(1) of the Montreal Convention, be interrupted or suspended?










2.


Does the provision contained in Article 35(2) of the Montreal Convention, […] [according to which] … ‘[t]he method for calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case’, allow it to be considered that a national legal provision on when the limitation period begins to run can prevail over the general provision contained in Article 35(1) whereby the limitation period begins with the arrival at the destination?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9045 — Blackstone/Averys) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, storage








C_2018265EN.01001601.xml










27.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 265/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9045 — Blackstone/Averys)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 265/07)

1.   
On 20 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:






—


Blackstone Group L.P. (‘Blackstone’, United States),










—


Financière Efel SAS (‘Averys’, France).




Blackstone acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Averys.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Blackstone: asset management and financial advisory services,
—   for Averys: manufacture of customised racking and storage solutions for warehouses, with brands such as Stow, Storax, Feralco, Duwic and Acial.


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.9045 — Blackstone/Averys
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-473/18: Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, education, registered trade mark, software, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2018352EN.01004002.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/40






Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)
(Case T-473/18)
(2018/C 352/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Getsmarter Online Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Silcock, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark getsmarter — Application for registration No 16 565 939

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2632/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Contested Decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the Appellant’s costs.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9009 — KKR/Casual Dining Bidco) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2018280EN.01000101.xml










9.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9009 — KKR/Casual Dining Bidco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 280/01)
On 27 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 32018M9009. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ L 16, 19.1.2012)
Date: 2018-07-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Investment Bank, Syria, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural gas, petroleum, technology transfer, trade restriction








L_2018190EN.01002001.xml










27.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 190/20







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 16 of 19 January 2012
)


On page 22, Annex IIa (List of entities or bodies referred to in Articles 14 and 15(1)(b)), ‘Entities’, entry No 1 (concerning Commercial Bank of Syria), in column ‘Identifying Information’:
for:

               ‘… SWIFT/BIC CMSY SY DA; …’,
read:

               ‘… SWIFT/BIC CMSYSYDA; ….’.