do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-509/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Czech Republic v European Commission
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, administrative supervision, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, financial aid








C_2018399EN.01003902.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/39






Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Czech Republic v European Commission
(Case T-509/18)
(2018/C 399/54)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 151 116,65 incurred by the Czech Republic, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (‘Regulation No 1306/2013’). The Commission incorrectly considers that the time between visits of the control bodies to an agricultural undertaking may not exceed the time laid down in Article 25 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1306/2013 with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (‘Regulation No 809/2014’).










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Even if there was an infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 in this case (quod non), the Czech Republic was entitled to have the legitimate expectation that its system of checks was consistent with EU law on the basis of the Commission’s conclusion from the previous audit accepting that on-the-spot checks in the Czech Republic were carried out in accordance with EU law.










3.


Third plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if there was an infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 on the part of the Czech Republic in this case (quod non), the Commission also included in the calculation of the financial correction the resources paid to agricultural undertakings for which there was demonstrably no infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 in the on-the-spot checks. The Commission thus also imposed a financial correction with respect to expenditure which could not be regarded as unjustifiably incurred and from which there was no risk to the EU funds.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8990 — PIAG/MTIB/Abatec) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, cycle and motorcycle industry, economic concentration, electronics industry, energy storage, merger control, metallurgical industry, supplier, vehicle parts








C_2018324EN.01000102.xml










13.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 324/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8990 — PIAG/MTIB/Abatec)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 324/02)
On 24 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 32018M8990. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-505/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Hungary v Commission
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, financial aid, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, producer organisation, reimbursement of aid








C_2018399EN.01003901.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/39






Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-505/18)
(2018/C 399/53)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, M.M. Tátrai and A. Pokoraczki, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in the part concerning Hungary which excludes from EU financing the aid granted to producer groups which have qualified recognition;










—


Order the Commission 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 that the contested exclusion to which the contested decision refers is unlawful, since the aid given to the producer groups affected was granted in accordance with EU law.
The applicant relies on the nature of the recognition of producer groups. It takes the view that, in deciding on the reimbursement of the national financial aid granted to those producer groups, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the producer groups that have been given qualified recognition meet the requirements under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested exclusion to which the contested decision refers is unlawful since, by virtue of the principles of sincere cooperation, proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, the exclusion ought to have been reduced or omitted.
According to the applicant, the contested exclusion is unlawful since, by virtue of the principles of sincere cooperation, proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, the exclusion ought to have been attenuated or omitted, since the rules of EU law applicable in relation to the assessment of the contested national law and practice are not absolutely clear –– thereby making the interpretation put forward by Hungary possible –– and given that the Commission was already aware of that national law and practice and failed to raise any objection in that respect.
Case T-507/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, Guadeloupe, Martinique, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, peripheral region, tropical fruit








C_2018392EN.01003201.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/32






Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission
(Case T-507/18)
(2018/C 392/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, S. Horrenberger and A. Alidière, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction of 5 %, equal to EUR 945 435,39, concerning ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the basis of ‘Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging an error of law committed by the Commission in the conformity clearance procedure concerning support for bananas, in that it misinterpreted the notion of ‘marketing’ of green bananas eligible for support from the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) applicable to Guadeloupe and Martinique.
First, the applicant claims that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion misconstrued the scope of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector (OJ 2011, L 336, p. 23).
Secondly, it submits that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion is based on a misapplication of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 671).
Case T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 August 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission (Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case — Weighing up of competing interests)
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, decontamination, drinking water, market approval, pharmaceutical product, preservative, rights of the defence








C_2018399EN.01003502.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/35






Order of the President of the General Court of 24 August 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission
(Case T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R)
((Interim relief - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Approval refused - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case - Weighing up of competing interests))
(2018/C 399/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant in case T-337/18 R: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Applicants in case T-347/18 R: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France) and Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG (Gampern, Austria) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 21) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1), and the adoption of any other appropriate interim measures.

Operative part of the order







1.


Cases T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R are joined for the purpose of the present order.










2.


The applications for interim measures are dismissed.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-504/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — XG v Commission
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European security, access to EU information, data protection, fundamental rights, occupational safety, personal data, principle of proportionality, provision of documents, public building, rights of the defence








C_2018373EN.01001701.xml










15.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/17






Action brought on 24 August 2018 — XG v Commission
(Case T-504/18)
(2018/C 373/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: XG (represented by: S. Kaisergruber and A. Brughelle-Vernet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare the application admissible and well founded;




Consequently:






—


Annul the decision of 3 July 2018 adopted by [confidential] (1) the European Commission to maintain the refusal of access to the applicant to Commission premises;










—


Order the Commission to pay 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 that the author of the contested act did not have the power to adopt it.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3 of Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 of 13 March 2015 on Security in the Commission (OJ 2015 L 72, p. 41; ‘Decision 2015/443’) and the absence of legal basis of the contested act.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights of the applicant, in particular breach of Article 67 TFEU, Article 6 TEU, Article 3 of Decision 2015/443 and Articles 6, 7, 8, 15, 27, 31, 41, 42, 47, 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This plea is divided into three parts:






—


first part, alleging infringement of the rights to freedom, privacy, protection of personal data and the right freely to exercise a profession;










—


second part, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration, transparency, access to documents and an effective remedy and infringement of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence;










—


third part, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.














4.


Fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the principles of the formal and material statement of reasons of unilateral acts. This plea is divided into two parts:






—


first part, alleging a lack of formal reasoning of the contested act;










—


second part, alleging a lack of substantive reasoning of the contested act.










(1)  Confidential data redacted.
Case T-508/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, information analysis, marketing, mobile phone, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2018373EN.01001801.xml










15.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/18






Action brought on 24 August 2018 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)
(Case T-508/18)
(2018/C 373/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OLX BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Lodge, K. Gilbert, Solicitors and V. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stra Lda (Coimbra, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark STRADIA — Application for registration No 14 841 985

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in joined Cases R 2228/2017-4 and R 2229/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, alter the contested decision to state that the Opposition should be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the Opposition;










—


order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board. In the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9027 — Fosun International/FFT) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: clothing industry, economic concentration, health service, insurance, investment, merger control, motor vehicle industry, organisation of health care, pharmaceutical industry, tourism








C_2018310EN.01000102.xml










3.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9027 — Fosun International/FFT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 310/02)
On 24 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 32018M9027. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-08-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018299EN.01000101.xml










24.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 299/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 August 2018
(2018/C 299/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1579 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4590 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89878 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5183 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1383 




ISK


Iceland króna


125,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6483 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,713 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,82 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2782 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6380 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,0273 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5888 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5089 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0895 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7352 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5864 




KRW


South Korean won


1 299,75 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4705 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9643 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4373 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 940,08 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7532 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,928 




RUB


Russian rouble


78,5871 




THB


Thai baht


37,956 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6976 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7438 




INR


Indian rupee


81,1815 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.