do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical process, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_2018290EN.01000401.xml










17.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 290/4






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 290/06)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised uses


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2018) 5057


10 August 2018


Trichloroethylene
EC No: 201-167-4
CAS No. 79-01-6


Blue Cube Germany Assets GmbH&Co. KG, Buetzflether Sand 2, 21683 Stade, Germany.


REACH/18/9/0


Use of trichloroethylene in industrial parts cleaning by vapour degreasing in closed systems where specific requirements (system of use-parameters) exist


21 October 2020


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.




REACH/18/9/1


Industrial use as process chemical (enclosed systems) in Alcantara Material production


21 April 2023




REACH/18/9/2


Use of trichloroethylene in packaging


21 April 2028




REACH/18/9/3


Use of trichloroethylene in formulation


21 April 2028




REACH/18/9/4


Use of trichloroethylene as extraction solvent for bitumen in asphalt analysis


21 April 2023






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1


(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case C-540/18 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2018 by HX against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-408/16 HX v Council of the European Union
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, proof, trade restriction








C_2018408EN.01004101.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/41






Appeal brought on 17 August 2018 by HX against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-408/16 HX v Council of the European Union
(Case C-540/18 P)
(2018/C 408/54)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Appellant: HX (represented by S. Koev)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded in its entirety and declare all the grounds of appeal set out in support of the present appeal to be well founded;










—


Declare that the contested decision of the General Court under appeal may be annulled in its entirety;










—


Set aside the entirety of judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2018, HX v Council, T-408/16;










—


Partially annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 amending Decision 2013/255, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 30), Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 15) in so far as they concern HX;










—


Order the Council to pay all the appellant’s costs, expenses, fees and other expenditure linked to his defence.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







1.


Error in the application of the law by the General Court, resulting in an infringement of EU law, in so far as it found that the Council correctly applied the presumption that the appellant was a prominent businessman carrying out his business in Syria, given that that presumption has no legal basis and is disproportionate in relation to the legal objective pursued.










2.


Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of the rules on evidence, on account of the lack of evidence for the purposes of applying the presumption and the refusal to apply Articles 27(3) and 28(3) of Decision 2013/255 amended by Decision 2015/1836.










3.


Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of procedural rules which adversely affect the interests of the appellant, on account of the refusal to admit new evidence produced in accordance with Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018290EN.01000301.xml










17.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 290/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 August 2018
(2018/C 290/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1370 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,02 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4573 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89498 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4663 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1299 




ISK


Iceland króna


123,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6130 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,702 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,51 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3142 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6603 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,6368 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5647 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4942 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9250 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7267 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5648 




KRW


South Korean won


1 284,56 




ZAR


South African rand


16,5835 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8396 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4225 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 611,57 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6590 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,765 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,2551 




THB


Thai baht


37,822 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4228 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6972 




INR


Indian rupee


79,8070 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9039 — Bain Capital/Vista/Aptean Public Sector/Superion/Tritech) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2018300EN.01000102.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9039 — Bain Capital/Vista/Aptean Public Sector/Superion/Tritech)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 300/02)
On 17 August 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 32018M9039. 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.9011 — KKR/Sellbytel Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2018302EN.01000201.xml










28.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9011 — KKR/Sellbytel Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 302/03)
On 17 August 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 32018M9011. 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.9007 — Porsche/Schuler/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, machine-tool industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2018300EN.01000201.xml










27.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9007 — Porsche/Schuler/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 300/03)
On 17 August 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 German language 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 32018M9007. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-537/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 August 2018 — YV
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, appeal, enforcement of ruling, equal treatment, higher court, judge, labour standard








C_2018427EN.01001102.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 August 2018 — YV
(Case C-537/18)
(2018/C 427/16)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: YV

Respondent: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

Question referred

Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of final instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for suspension of execution of the contested measure, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint the judges adjudicating within it?


(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case T-494/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, posted worker, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, wage determination








C_2018381EN.01002901.xml










22.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 381/29






Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS
(Case T-494/18)
(2018/C 381/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PO (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


[Annul] the calculation slip dated 17 October 2017 which was sent to him by email on the same day by the EEAS Human Resources Department;










—


[Annul] the email of 16 January 2018 sent to him by the EEAS Human Resources Department confirming the absence of a legal basis to exceed the statutory ceiling for his son and daughter;










—


[Annul], in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 17 January 2018 and notified to the applicant on 17 May 2018;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging illegality, since the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based, along with the Guidelines, infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Annex X thereto.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision contested in the present case on the following grounds;






—


Infringement of the precautionary principle, the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, of the principle of sound administration and of their acquired rights;










—


Infringement of the right to family and of the right to education;










—


Infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination;










—


The absence of any balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle of proportionality of the adopted measure.
Serbia on its European path.
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communication
Subjects: Serbia, accession negotiations, accession to the European Union, economic transition, enlargement of the Union, foreign investment, foreign trade, pre-accession aid, pre-accession strategy, public administration

SERBIA 

O N   I T S   E U R O P E A N     P A T H

TR ADE & INVESTMENT
D   The EU is Serbia's biggest 

trading partner

D   The EU's contribution to total Forei-
gn Direct Investment in Serbia was 
66% in 2016

D  Volume of trade with the EU 
was €2.3 billion in 2017

In 2016

66% 
in exports 
to the EU

63% 
in imports
from the EU

MOBILIT Y & 
EMPOWERMENT 

D  Visa-free travel to the EU 
since December 2009

D  In 2015-2016 over 9000 

participants in student, academic 
and youth exchanges under 
ERASMUS+

D  € 33 million for inclusive quality 

education in the period 2014-2017

SUPPORT FOR 
KEY SECTORS 
2014-2020  
(€1.5 BILLION)

14%

12%

10%

16%

16%

14%

9%

9%

 Justice and Home 
Affairs
 Public Administration 
Reform
 Transport
  Environment and 
Climate Change
 Social Development
  Agriculture and 
Rural Development
  Private Sector 
Development
 Other

C
-
N
E
-
6
8
4
-
8
1
-
4
0
-
A
N

N
-
N
E
-
6
8
4
-
8
1
-
4
0
-
A
N

EU FUNDING

The EU is the largest provider 
of financial assistance to Serbia

D  €2.5 billion in EU pre-accession funds 

2007-2020

D  €5 billion provided in European 

Investment Bank loans since 1999
D  €116.4 million provided to date in 

Western Balkans Investment Framework 
grants, leveraging investments 
estimated at          € 2.25 billion

D  €72 million in disaster relief after the 

floods in 2014

SUPPORTING 
TR ANSFORMATION

D  Strengthening Democracy: Rule 

of Law, Justice and Fundamental 
Rights

D  Reforming public administration
D  Strengthening competitiveness 

and supporting business 
development

D  Working towards a cleaner 
environment and safer food

K E Y M I L E S T O N E S

DECEMBER 2009    

 Application for EU 
membership

MARCH 2012
EU Candidate country status 
granted

SEPTEMBER 2013
Entry into force of the 
Stabilisation and Association 
Agreement 

JANUARY 2014   

DECEMBER 2017      

Accession negotiations 
opened 

12 chapters out of 35 opened 
of which 2 provisionally 
closed

ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement   |   facebook.com/EUnear   |   twitter.com/eu_near  |  Last updated: 05/2018 

Source: EU data

/

7
6
9
9
0
8
5
7
7
2
0
1

.

:
i

o
d

/

2
9
3
3
2
5
7
7
2
0
1

.

:
i

o
d

3
-
3
2
4
0
9
-
9
7
-
2
9
-
8
7
9
N
B
S
I

8
-
7
5
4
0
9
-
9
7
-
2
9
-
8
7
9
N
B
S
I

t
n
i
r
P

F
D
P
Case T-495/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST)
Date: 2018-08-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2018352EN.01004402.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/44






Action brought on 17 August 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST)
(Case T-495/18)
(2018/C 352/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DERMATEST’ — Application for registration No 17 542 986

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 426/2018-4

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 proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


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