do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-554/18 P: Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-310/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01002101.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/21






Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-310/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO
(Case C-554/18 P)
(2019/C 93/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP (represented by: R. Nöske, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 15 January 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-514/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others V SRB
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, access to EU information, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, confidentiality, credit institution, provision of documents








C_2018427EN.01007901.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/79






Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others V SRB
(Case T-514/18)
(2018/C 427/106)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 36 others (represented by: P. Saini, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister and R. Boynton, Solicitor)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought







—


annul the final decision of the SRB Appeal Panel in Case 48/2017, dated 19 June 2018, insofar as the latter held that the Single Resolution Board (SRB) was entitled to rely upon (i) Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent; (ii) Article 4(2), first indent; (iii) Article 4(2), third indent; and/or (iv) Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (1) (and/or the equivalent provisions under SRB Decision SRB/ES/2017/01 of 9 February 2017 on public access to SRB documents), in order to justify non-disclosure of the documents requested by the applicants in their confirmatory application dated 23 August 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the SRB Appeal Panel has infringed the fourth indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No. 1049/2001










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 11 of Regulation No. 1049/2001.






(1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Case C-553/18 P: Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-294/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01002003.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/20






Appeal brought on 29 August 2018 by Lion's Head Global Partners LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-294/17: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP v EUIPO
(Case C-553/18 P)
(2019/C 93/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lion's Head Global Partners LLP (represented by: R. Nöske, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 15 January 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8858 — Boeing/Safran/JV (Auxiliary Power Units)) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, aerospace industry, economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, provision of services








C_2018303EN.01002201.xml










29.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/22






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8858 — Boeing/Safran/JV (Auxiliary Power Units))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 303/10)

1.   
On 23 August 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:






—


The Boeing Company (‘Boeing’, USA),










—


Safran S. A. (‘Safran’, France),










—


JV LLC (USA),




Boeing and Safran acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint-venture (JV LLC).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.
The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 5 June 2018, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 26 June 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Boeing: design, manufacture and sale of commercial jetliners and defence, space and security systems globally. Boeing is also a provider of aftermarket services for the aerospace market,
—   for Safran: design, manufacture and sale of aerospace systems, aircraft equipment and defence globally. Products include aircraft and space engines, electrical and wiring systems and on-board systems for commercial, regional and business aircraft. Safran is also a provider of aftermarket services for its equipment,
—   for JV LLC: design, manufacture and supply auxiliary power units (‘APU Systems’) for use on commercial aircraft. The JV LLC will also provide maintenance, repair and overhaul services and associated spare parts in respect to APU Systems.


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.



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.8858 — Boeing/Safran/JV (Auxiliary power units)
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 +32 229-64301




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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9078 — Ivanhoe Cambridge/PSPIB/VGMV LP JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2018332EN.01000202.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9078 — Ivanhoe Cambridge/PSPIB/VGMV LP JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 332/04)
On 29 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 32018M9078. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-552/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2018 — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, judicial proceedings, principle of proportionality, public contract, termination of a contract








C_2018436EN.01002201.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2018 — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto
(Case C-552/18)
(2018/C 436/29)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno

Respondent: Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

Question referred

Does EU law, more specifically Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) on public procurement, in conjunction with recital 101 of the directive and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue, which categorises ‘grave professional misconduct’ as a mandatory ground of exclusion of an economic operator and provides that, where the professional misconduct has led to the early termination of a public contract, the operator may be excluded only if the termination is not contested or is confirmed at the conclusion of judicial proceedings?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Corrigendum to Council Recommendation of 6 March 2018 concerning a roadmap for the implementation of PESCO (OJ C 88, 8.3.2018)
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU Member State, European defence policy, European security, common foreign and security policy, military cooperation, project evaluation, project management








C_2018303EN.01002301.xml










29.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/23






Corrigendum to Council Recommendation of 6 March 2018 concerning a roadmap for the implementation of PESCO
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 88 of 8 March 2018
)
(2018/C 303/11)
On page 3, point 12, second sentence:

for:


‘… with Article 5(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 …’,


read:


‘… with Article 5(3) of Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 …’.
Case T-524/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa)
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, sports equipment, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2018399EN.01004301.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/43






Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa)
(Case T-524/18)
(2018/C 399/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: J. Rether, M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger, S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boardriders IP Holdings LLC (Huntington Beach, California, United States)

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 Billa — Application for registration No 11 592 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2235/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 46 and 71 of Regulation No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in connection with Articles 2(2)(i) and 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation No 2017/1430.
Case C-551/18 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, alternative sentence, carrying out of sentence, imprisonment, offence








C_2019016EN.01002801.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK
(Case C-551/18 PPU)
(2019/C 16/35)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant: IK

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient that, in the EAW, an issuing judicial authority mentions only the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not the legal consequence imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, such as the TBS, which will give rise to actual deprivation of liberty only after the execution of the main custodial sentence and only after an exceptional decision to that effect is taken by the sentencing court?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the surrender by the Member State of the issuing judicial authority on the basis of an EAW that refers only to the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not to the legal consequence of the TBS imposed, which has been imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, has the result that actual deprivation of liberty in execution of that legal consequence may be effected in the Member State of the issuing judicial authority?










3.


If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority’s failure to mention in the EAW the legal consequence of the TBS imposed has the result that the legal consequence imposed, of which the issuing judicial authority can be assumed not to have any knowledge, cannot give rise to actual deprivation of liberty in the issuing Member State?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018303EN.01000601.xml










29.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 August 2018
(2018/C 303/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1710 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4574 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90680 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6633 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1427 




ISK


Iceland króna


124,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7243 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,713 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,79 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2723 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6464 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,3316 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5924 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5128 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1922 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7444 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5945 




KRW


South Korean won


1 294,67 




ZAR


South African rand


16,5894 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9641 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4325 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 122,36 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7970 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,387 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,0727 




THB


Thai baht


38,098 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7909 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9495 




INR


Indian rupee


82,0965 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9069 — Kuwait Investment Authority/North Sea Midstream Partners) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas industry, investment company, merger control








C_2018303EN.01002101.xml










29.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9069 — Kuwait Investment Authority/North Sea Midstream Partners)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 303/09)

1.   
On 23 August 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:






—


Kuwait Investment Authority (‘KIA’, Kuwait);










—


North Sea Midstream Partners Limited (‘NSMP’, UK).




KIA acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over the whole of NSMP via a special purpose vehicle, Selkie Investments Midstream Bidco Limited.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


KIA is a global investor, investing in real estate, private and public equity, fixed income and alternative investment markets across the globe; it principally acquires non-controlling minority stakes;










—


NSMP owns natural gas transportation and processing assets in and around the UK North Sea.






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.9069 — Kuwait Investment Authority/North Sea Midstream Partners
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-521/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)
Date: 2018-08-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01003401.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/34






Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)
(Case T-521/18)
(2018/C 392/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC BROKERAGE — European Union trade mark No 3 812 195

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2186/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;










—


alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.