do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Special Report No 22/2018 — ‘Mobility under Erasmus+: Millions of participants and multi-faceted European Added Value, however performance measurement needs to be further improved’
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU programme, administrative formalities, cooperation in the field of education, education policy, language teaching, postgraduate education, project evaluation, student mobility, vocational training, young person








C_2018318EN.01000301.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/3






Special Report No 22/2018
‘Mobility under Erasmus+: Millions of participants and multi-faceted European Added Value, however performance measurement needs to be further improved’
(2018/C 318/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 22/2018 ‘Mobility under Erasmus+: Millions of participants and multi-faceted European Added Value, however performance measurement needs to be further improved’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-532/18: Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges)
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cosmetic product, designs and models








C_2018392EN.01003701.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/37






Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges)
(Case T-532/18)
(2018/C 392/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aroma Essence Ltd (Kazanlak, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Nastev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1333223-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2018 in Case R 1197/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision or alter it by dismissing the appeal of Refan Bulgaria OOD against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 10 April 2017;










—


order EUIPO and Refan Bulgaria OOD to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Aroma Essence Ltd in the proceedings before the General court and before the Third Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the principle of sound administration;










—


Infringement of Articles 53(1)(2) and 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Articles 28(1)(b)(i)(v)(vi), 30(1) and 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002;










—


Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration;










—


Infringement of Articles 59, 60(1), 65(1)(b)(c) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and of Article 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 10 September 2018 in the case of Andreas Gyrre v The Norwegian Government (Case E-1/19)
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Olympic games, consumer protection, market approval, restriction on competition, sale








C_2019167EN.01001001.xml










16.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/10






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 10 September 2018 in the case of Andreas Gyrre v The Norwegian Government
(Case E-1/19)
(2019/C 167/06)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 10 September 2018 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 3 January 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Andreas Gyrre v The Norwegian Government on the following questions:






1.


Is point 9 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market to be interpreted as covering situations where a trader states or otherwise creates the impression that a product can legally be sold where there is a legislative provision, such as in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, in an EEA State which provides that the product cannot legally be sold and which is enforced under national law?






a.


Does it have a bearing on this assessment that the prohibition applies in the EEA State where the product is to be used but not in the State where the product is sold?










b.


Does it have a bearing on this assessment if, after the sale, it is determined that the prohibition was contrary to EEA law?














2.


If a determination of whether the prohibition under national law is contrary to EEA law rules has a bearing on the assessment under point 9 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC:






a.


Does the prohibition of resale of such tickets as in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 constitute regulation of commercial practices falling within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market?










b.


Does the Directive preclude a national prohibition of resale, such as provided for in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, where such a prohibition safeguards not only consumer protection considerations but also other considerations, such as security?










c.


If it is necessary to ascertain whether restrictions on the resale of tickets for sporting events such as the Olympic Games are contrary to the fundamental freedoms under the EEA Agreement, including Articles 11 and 36 EEA, which criteria should the national court use as a basis for its assessment of whether such restrictions are suitable and necessary for achieving legitimate objectives such as consumer protection and security?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018318EN.01000101.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 September 2018
(2018/C 318/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1615 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,74 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4580 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89275 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5163 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1217 




ISK


Iceland króna


129,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7745 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,697 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3081 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6413 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,4772 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6219 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5238 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1175 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7647 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5976 




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,07 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5530 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9476 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4253 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 213,43 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8165 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,453 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,6765 




THB


Thai baht


38,080 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7150 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,2326 




INR


Indian rupee


83,3200 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR) — List of Member States who have decided the application of the PNR Directive to intra-EU flights as referred to in Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (If a Member State decides to apply this Directive to intra-EU flights, it shall notify the Commission in writing. A Member State may give or revoke such a notification at any time. The Commission shall publish that notification and any revocation of it in the Official Journal of the European Union) (OJ C 196, 8.6.2018)
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, air safety, air transport, data collection, data protection, data transmission, personal data, protection of privacy, terrorism, traveller








C_2018318EN.01000601.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/6






Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR)
List of Member States who have decided the application of the PNR Directive to intra-EU flights as referred to in Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime

(If a Member State decides to apply this Directive to intra-EU flights, it shall notify the Commission in writing. A Member State may give or revoke such a notification at any time. The Commission shall publish that notification and any revocation of it in the Official Journal of the European Union)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 196 of 8 June 2018
)
(2018/C 318/05)
On page 29:
The following Member States that have notified the Commission of the application of the PNR Directive in intra-EU flights are added:






—


France,










—


Austria.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9080 — CEFC/Rockaway Capital/European Bridge Travel (II)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, holding company, investment company, mechanical engineering, merger control, metalworking, property leasing, sports body, tourism








C_2018318EN.01000401.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9080 — CEFC/Rockaway Capital/European Bridge Travel (II))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 318/04)

1.   
On 3 September 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:






—


CEFC Group (Europe) Company a.s. (‘CEFC’, China), controlled by CITIC Group,










—


Rockaway Capital SE (‘Rockaway’, Czech Republic).




CEFC and Rockaway acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of European Bridge Travel a.s. (‘the JV’), currently controlled by Rockaway.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CEFC: is active in metallurgy, engineering, hotel services, real estate rental (office space and retail space) and the operation of a sports (football) club,
—   for Rockaway: invests in existing companies and start-ups in the technology sector, including e-commerce,
—   for the JV: is a holding company which indirectly controls other companies engaged in the provision of travel services, particularly sales of third-party travel and online airline sales.


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.9080 — CEFC/Rockaway Capital/European Bridge Travel (II)
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 C-570/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2018 by HF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, HF v Parliament
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2018455EN.01002001.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/20






Appeal brought on 10 September 2018 by HF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, HF v Parliament
(Case C-570/18 P)
(2018/C 455/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17,
Consequently,










—


uphold the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, thus,










—


annul the decision of the European Parliament of 30 June 2016 rejecting the appellant’s request for assistance,










—


order the Parliament to pay compensation in respect of non-financial harm estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 90 000,










—


order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







—


Breach of the right to be heard — Breach of Article 41[(2)](a) of the Charter;










—


Breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter — Distortion of the arguments of the appellant — Breach by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons;










—


Breach of Article 31(1) of the Charter — Infringement of Article 12a(1), (3) and (24) of the Staff Regulations.




Furthermore, the appellant disputes the decision of the General Court to reject her claim for damages on the ground that the contested decision has not been set aside.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9070 — Eurocar/Vicentini) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, motor vehicle industry, retail trade, vehicle parts








C_2018459EN.01000101.xml










20.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9070 — Eurocar/Vicentini)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 459/01)
On 10 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 32018M9070. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Italy, data processing, electronic document, electronic government, electronic signature, identity document, residence permit, service, single market








C_2018318EN.01000201.xml










10.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/2






Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (1)

(2018/C 318/02)










Title of the scheme


eID means under the notified scheme


Notifying Member State


Level of assurance


Authority responsible for the scheme


Date of publication in the Official Journal




German eID based on Extended Access Control


National Identity Card
Electronic Residence Permit


Germany


High







Federal Ministry of the Interior




Alt-Moabit 140




10557 Berlin




GERMANY




ITI4@bmi.bund.de




+49 30186810






26.9.2017




SPID — Public System of Digital Identity


SPID eID means provided by:






—


Aruba PEC SpA










—


Namirial SpA










—


InfoCert SpA










—


In.Te.S.A. SpA










—


Poste Italiane SpA










—


Register.it SpA










—


Sielte SpA










—


Telecom Italia










—


Trust Technologies S.r.l.






Italy


Substantial Low







AgID — Agency for Digital Italy




Viale Liszt, 21




00144 Roma




ITALY




eidas-spid@agid.gov.it




+39 0685264407






10.9.2018






(1)  OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bio-industry, disease of the nervous system, economic concentration, joint venture, merger control, miscellaneous industries, pharmaceutical industry, therapeutics








C_2018345EN.01000102.xml










27.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 345/02)
On 10 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 32018M8956. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.