do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-567/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l. and Others
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, launching of a product, registered trade mark, sale, storage, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01001402.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l. and Others
(Case C-567/18)
(2018/C 427/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendants: Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l., Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l., Amazon EU S.a.r.l.

Question referred

Does a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without having knowledge of that infringement, stock those goods for the purpose of offering them or putting them on the market, if it is not that person himself but rather the third party alone which intends to offer the goods or put them on the market? (1)



(1)  Interpretation of Article 9(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and interpretation of Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
Case T-534/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01003801.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/38






Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)
(Case T-534/18)
(2018/C 392/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’ — Application for registration No 1 915 438

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 115/2005-1

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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;










—


Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.
Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2019 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, action programme, innovation, invitation to tender








C_2018315EN.01002101.xml










7.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/21






Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2019 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
(2018/C 315/10)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2019 under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).
The Commission has adopted the ERC Work Programme 2019 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/erc/h2020-wp19-erc_en.pdf) by Decision C(2018) 5200 of 6 September 2018.
Proposals are invited for these calls. The ERC Work Programme 2019, including deadlines and budgets, is available through the Participant Portal website along with information on the modalities of the calls and related activities and the information for applicants on how to submit proposals:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9065 — Akastor/Mitsui &amp; Co/Mitsui OSK Lines/AKOFS Offshore) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: combined transport, economic concentration, extraction of oil, investment company, maritime shipping, merger control, provision of services, shipbuilding








C_2018325EN.01000201.xml










14.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9065 — Akastor/Mitsui & Co/Mitsui OSK Lines/AKOFS Offshore)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 325/02)
On 7 September 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 32018M9065. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-564/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 September 2018 — LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, administrative procedure, aid to refugees, limitation of legal proceedings, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2018436EN.01002302.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 September 2018 — LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
(Case C-564/18)
(2018/C 436/32)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LH

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Questions referred







1.


May the provisions on inadmissible applications in Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’), be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s legislation pursuant to which an application is inadmissible in the context of the asylum procedure when the applicant has arrived in that Member State, Hungary, via a country where he is not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed?










2.


May Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 31 of the Procedures Directive — having regard also to the provisions of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights — be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s legislation complies with those provisions when it lays down a mandatory time limit of eight days for the administrative-law proceedings before a court in respect of applications declared inadmissible in asylum procedures?






(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8952 — STEAG/Siemens/JV STEAG GuD) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, energy production, merger control, power plant








C_2018315EN.01002501.xml










7.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/25






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8952 — STEAG/Siemens/JV STEAG GuD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 315/13)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


Siemens Project Ventures GmbH (‘Siemens’, Germany), part of the Siemens Group (Germany)










—


STEAG Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (‘STEAG’, Germany)










—


STEAG GuD Herne, the joint venture (‘JV’, Germany).




Siemens and STEAG acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the JV. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares, whereby Siemens acquires 50 % of the shares and voting rights in the JV from its current sole owner, STEAG.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


STEAG is an international energy supplier, which is active in the generation and supply of electricity and district heating, as well as the project development, construction and operation of power plants and relating technical services,










—


Siemens is a global technology group focused on electrification, automation and digitisation in particular concerning power generation and transmission, medical, infrastructure and industrial applications,










—


The JV will build and operate a gas and steam turbine power plant in Herne (Germany), and market the generated electricity and heat.






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.8952 — STEAG/Siemens/JV STEAG GuD
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’).
Special Report No 21/2018 — ‘Selection and monitoring for ERDF and ESF projects in the 2014-2020 period are still mainly outputs-oriented’
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, allocation of resources, distribution of EU funding, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, investment policy, operational programme, regional development, structural expenditure








C_2018315EN.01002001.xml










7.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/20






Special Report No 21/2018
‘Selection and monitoring for ERDF and ESF projects in the 2014-2020 period are still mainly outputs-oriented’
(2018/C 315/09)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 21/2018 ‘Selection and monitoring for ERDF and ESF projects in the 2014-2020 period are still mainly outputs-oriented’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: India, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, steel, wire








C_2018315EN.01002201.xml










7.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/22






Notice of the expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures
(2018/C 315/11)
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-subsidy measure mentioned below will expire.
This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2).









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Stainless steel wires


India


Anti-subsidy duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 861/2013 of 2 September 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India (OJ L 240, 7.9.2013, p. 1).


8.9.2018






(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2018, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(3)  The measure will expire at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018315EN.01000201.xml










7.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 September 2018
(2018/C 315/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1634 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,55 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4567 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89824 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5908 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1275 




ISK


Iceland króna


127,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7760 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,715 




HUF


Hungarian forint


326,49 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3183 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6385 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6282 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6164 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5338 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1324 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7633 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6000 




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,76 




ZAR


South African rand


17,8233 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9451 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4341 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 323,54 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8120 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,592 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,5747 




THB


Thai baht


38,130 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7918 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,3653 




INR


Indian rupee


83,7175 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-362/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 September 2018 — Robert v Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens (Interim measures — Dismissal of the main action — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: pharmaceutical legislation, pharmacist, service concession








C_2018399EN.01003601.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/36






Order of the President of the General Court of 7 September 2018 — Robert v Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens
(Case T-362/18 R)
((Interim measures - Dismissal of the main action - No need to adjudicate))
(2018/C 399/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alain Robert (Le Mans, France) (represented by: J.-M. Viala, lawyer)

Defendant: Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of the French Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens of 3 October 2017, upheld by the French Conseil d’État by judgment of 7 February 2018, prohibiting the applicant from practicing as a pharmacist for one year.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.










2.


Mr. Alain Robert shall bear his own costs.
Case T-535/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01003901.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/39






Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)
(Case T-535/18)
(2018/C 392/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’s’ — Application for registration No 3 263 589

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 60/2007-1

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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(3) of the MarkenG on the basis of an unfair advantage taken of distinctive character or repute or of detriment to distinctive character or repute;










—


Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Cases where the Commission raises no objectionsText with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Finland, State aid, control of State aid








C_2018317EN.01001001.xml










7.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 317/10






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
(2018/C 317/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


17.05.2018




Aid number


SA.47083 (2017/NN)




Member State


Finland




Region


SUOMI/FINLAND


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Prevention of extensive forest damages caused by damaging agents already existing in Finland




Legal basis


Laki metsätuhojen torjunnasta (Forest Damages Prevention Act, 1087/2013)




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Aid for specific forest actions and interventions with the primary objective to contribute to maintaining or to restoring forest ecosystem and biodiversity or the traditional landscape




Form of aid


Direct grant, Subsidized services




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 1 (in millions)
Annual budget: EUR 0.2 (in millions)




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


until 31.12.2021




Economic sectors


Silviculture and other forestry activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry




PO Box 30, 00023 GOVERNMENT








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.
Case C-566/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF
Date: 2018-09-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2018455EN.01001901.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF
(Case C-566/18)
(2018/C 455/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant: Austrian Airlines AG

Applicants and respondents: MG, NF

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation if the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passengers is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellations and the associated delay?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative: how is this to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009, Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, (2) according to which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012, Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, (3) that a delay in excess of three hours is not taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(2)  EU:C:2009:716.

(3)  EU:C:2012:657.