do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-571/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YR v Commission
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, children's rights, education grant, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, school fees








C_2018408EN.01006002.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/60






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YR v Commission
(Case T-571/18)
(2018/C 408/78)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 13 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






—


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of general implementing provisions on the reimbursement of medical fees, in so far as the defendant’s amended interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration.










—


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.










—


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










—


Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure properly to balance the applicant’s interests and to comply with the principle of proportionality, which failures vitiate the contested decision.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018342EN.01000101.xml










25.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 September 2018
(2018/C 342/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1773 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,56 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4597 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89458 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3563 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1290 




ISK


Iceland króna


129,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5693 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,615 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,49 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3009 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6579 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,3093 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6187 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5231 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1941 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7651 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6061 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,12 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7591 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0729 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4265 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 512,34 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8611 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,840 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,5752 




THB


Thai baht


38,139 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7822 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1852 




INR


Indian rupee


85,5665 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-182/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark AKANTO — Earlier EU word mark KANTOS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01005002.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/50






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)
(Case T-182/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark AKANTO - Earlier EU word mark KANTOS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 408/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: P. Duarte Guimarães and J. Ivanauskas, and subsequently by J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, and F. Folmer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 531/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Chiesi Farmaceutici and Novartis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case T-457/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Medisana v EUIPO (happy life) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark happy life — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, reproductive health, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01005401.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/54






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Medisana v EUIPO (happy life)
(Case T-457/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark happy life - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 408/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Medisana AG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 (Case R 1965/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign happy life as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Medisana AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Case T-180/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ‘EM’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence produced for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, soil conditioning, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01005001.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/50






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM)
(Case T-180/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘EM’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence produced for the first time before the General Court))
(2018/C 408/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: EM Research Organization, Inc. (Okinawa, Japan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Christoph Fischer GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany), Ole Weinkath (Hünxe-Drevenack, Germany), Multikraft Produktions- und Handels GmbH (Pichl/Wels, Austria), Phytodor AG (Buochs, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger, K. Lochner and M. Peters, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 2442/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Christoph Fischer, Ole Weinkath, Multikraft Produktions- und Handel and Phytodor, on one hand, and, on the other, EM Research Organization.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EM Research Organization, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case T-575/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, human relations, leisure, performing arts, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01009302.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/93






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)
(Case T-575/18)
(2018/C 427/123)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shore Capital International Ltd (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Circle Imperium BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark The Inner Circle — International registration designating the European Union No 1 266 666

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 1402/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismisses the appeal of the applicant against the decision of the defendant's Opposition Division dated 26 April 2017, and thus upholds the IR holder's application for protection of the international trademark ‘The Inner Circle’ (No. 1 266 666) in the European Union for class 41;










—


order the IR holder and the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9072 — KKR/Altice/SFR Filiale) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, economic concentration, investment company, mass media, merger control, telecommunications








C_2019028EN.01000101.xml










23.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9072 — KKR/Altice/SFR Filiale)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 28/01)
On 25 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 32018M9072. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-33/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA and submitted as part of the request for authorisation to place the medicinal product Galafold on the market — Decision to grant a third party access to a document — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — No general presumption of confidentiality)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, acquisition of property, confidentiality, disclosure of information, intellectual property, protection of privacy, provision of documents, right to information








C_2018408EN.01004801.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/48






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA
(Case T-33/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA and submitted as part of the request for authorisation to place the medicinal product Galafold on the market - Decision to grant a third party access to a document - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - No general presumption of confidentiality))
(2018/C 408/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Amicus Therapeutics UK Ltd (Gerrards Cross, United Kingdom) and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (Cranbury, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by N. Rampal Olmedo, S. Marino, A. Spina, A. Rusanov and T. Jabłoński, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EMA Decision ASK-22072 of 14 December 2016, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 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), access to a document containing information submitted in the context of a request for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Galafold.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Amicus Therapeutics UK Ltd and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Case T-576/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, administrative sanction, bank, banking supervision, financial control, financial requirements, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, share, share capital








C_2018436EN.01005501.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/55






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB
(Case T-576/18)
(2018/C 436/78)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018;










—


order the ECB 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 decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018, imposing on the applicant an administrative penalty for continued breach of the common equity requirements provided for in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’), is ultra vires. In that regard, the applicant argues as follows:






—


principally, it claims that the ECB erred in law in its interpretation of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which does not require establishments to obtain prior authorisation from the ECB in order to classify ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital;










—


in the alternative, should the Court consider that classification of ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital without prior authorisation from the ECB constitutes a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the applicant claims not to have committed any intentional or negligent breach in applying that provision and that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty;










—


in the further alternative, should the Court consider that a breach can be established and the applicant penalised, the applicant claims that, in the light of the lack of seriousness of the alleged breach and the cooperation of the applicant, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the ECB of the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights in so far as it based the contested decision on complaints against which the applicant was unable to present its objections.
Case T-573/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Hickies v EUIPO (Shape of a shoe lace)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, decorative item, footwear industry, plastics, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01006201.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/62






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Hickies v EUIPO (Shape of a shoe lace)
(Case T-573/18)
(2018/C 408/80)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hickies, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a shoe lace) — Application for registration No 16 952 962

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2018 in Case R 2693/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in relation to ‘shoe laces; shoe ornaments made of plastic; shoe trimmings; accessories for apparel, sewing articles and decorative textile articles; shoe buckles; shoe fasteners’;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control, metalworking, vehicle parts








C_2018342EN.01000701.xml










25.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 342/05)

1.   
On 17 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:






—


Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (United States),










—


Asco Industries N.V., Asco Management NV and Immobiliere Asco NV, through the holding company S.R.I.F. NV (Belgium).




Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (‘Spirit’) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Asco Industries N.V., Asco Management NV and Immobiliere Asco NV, through the holding company S.R.I.F. NV (‘Asco’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Spirit designs, manufactures and sells aerostructures for commercial and military aircraft,










—


Asco is active in the machining, treatment and assembly of hard metal, steel and aluminium alloys, composites and the sale of components and sub-components for the aerostructures of commercial aircraft and military aircraft.






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.8948 — Spirit/Asco
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’).
Case T-238/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark GUGLER — Earlier national company name Gugler France — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, glass, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01005201.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/52






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER)
(Case T-238/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark GUGLER - Earlier national company name Gugler France - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))
(2018/C 408/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially P. Sipos, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gugler France (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2017 (Case R 1008/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gugler France and Mr Gugler.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 January 2017 (Case R 1008/2016-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler;










3.


Orders Gugler France to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.