do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedule of the Republic of Croatia in the course of its accession to the European Union
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Croatia, GATT, New Zealand, accession to the European Union, agreement (EU), revision of an agreement, tariff preference








L_2018240EN.01000101.xml










25.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 240/1







Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedule of the Republic of Croatia in the course of its accession to the European Union

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and New Zealand pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the schedule of the Republic of Croatia in the course of its accession to the European Union (1), signed in Brussels on 13 March 2018, will enter into force on 1 October 2018.


(1)  
            OJ L 185, 23.7.2018, p. 3.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9116 — Morgan Stanley/VTG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, combined transport, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, rail transport, road transport, subsidiary, vehicle rental








C_2018342EN.01000601.xml










25.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9116 — Morgan Stanley/VTG)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 342/04)

1.   
On 13 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:






—


Warwick Holding GmbH (‘Warwick Holding’, Germany), controlled by Morgan Stanley (United States of America),










—


VTG Aktiengesellschaft (‘VTG’, Germany).




Warwick Holding acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of VTG.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 16 July 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Warwick Holding: indirectly, wholly owned subsidiary of funds advised by Morgan Stanley Infrastructure. Morgan Stanley is a leading global financial services firm providing a wide range of investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services,
—   for VTG: provider of wagon hire and rail logistics services with a fleet of some 83 000 rail freight wagons, as well as of multimodal logistics services, focusing on rail transport and global tank container transport.


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.9116 — Morgan Stanley/VTG
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-577/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 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.01005601.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/56






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB
(Case T-577/18)
(2018/C 436/79)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (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 which are, in essence, identical to those relied on in Case T-576/18, Crédit agricole v ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9016 — CMA CGM/Container Finance) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, combined transport, delivery, economic concentration, intra-EU transport, merger control








C_2018342EN.01000501.xml










25.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9016 — CMA CGM/Container Finance)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 342/03)

1.   
On 17 September 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


CMA CGM SA (‘CMA CGM’, France),










—


Container Finance Ltd Oy (‘Container Finance’, Finland).




CMA CGM acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Container Finance.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CMA CGM: intra-European door-to-door multimodal transport services and, to a lesser extent, container terminal services and freight forwarding services,
—   for Container Finance: intra-European door-to-door multimodal transport services via its subsidiary Containerships, and, to a lesser extent, container terminal services.


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.9016 — CMA CGM/Container Finance
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 C-605/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 September 2018 — Adler Real Estate AG and Others
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, enforcement of ruling, financial supervision, national implementing measure, natural person, offence, right to justice, securities, shareholding, takeover bid








C_2018445EN.01000701.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 September 2018 — Adler Real Estate AG and Others
(Case C-605/18)
(2018/C 445/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Adler Real Estate AG, Petrus Advisers LLP, TZ

Defendant authority: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(1a), fourth subparagraph, (iii), of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, (1) as last amended by Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, to be interpreted as meaning that it is a requirement for the permissibility of the imposition of ‘more stringent requirements’ on the ‘holder of shares, or a natural person or legal entity’, that the ‘laws, regulations or administrative provisions’ providing for more stringent requirements for holdings publicity are ‘supervised’ by an authority designated by the Member State pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC (2) … concerning takeover bids and that such supervision encompasses compliance with the more stringent requirements regarding holdings publicity within the meaning of Directive 2004/109/EC?










2.


Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national practice according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a natural person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is also given binding effect in the context of criminal proceedings conducted against that same natural person owing to a breach of national standards connected with such proceedings in implementation of Directive 2004/109/EC (Transparency Directive), with the result that that natural person is prevented from challenging, in law and fact, the breach of law already established with the force of res judicata?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 390, p. 38.

(2)  Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).
Case T-233/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Direct payments — POSEI programme — Exceeding of ceilings — Payment delays — First subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006 — Double financial correction — Rights of the defence — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU direct payments, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2018408EN.01005101.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/51






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-233/17) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Direct payments - POSEI programme - Exceeding of ceilings - Payment delays - First subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 885/2006 - Double financial correction - Rights of the defence - Proportionality))
(2018/C 408/65)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, D. Bianchi and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 766 final of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic under the ‘POSEI — specific supply arrangements’ programme and ‘direct payments pertaining to the 2010 marketing year’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case T-328/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI — Prior EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — 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, catering industry, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018408EN.01005202.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/52






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
(Case T-328/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI - Prior EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 408/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, D. Walicka and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dimitrova, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2017 (Case R 497/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and M. J. Dairies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Case T-569/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen v EUIPO (Kordes’ Rose Monique)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floriculture, horticulture, plant propagation, plant variety right, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018436EN.01005402.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/54






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen v EUIPO (Kordes’ Rose Monique)
(Case T-569/18)
(2018/C 436/77)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co KG (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Kordes’ Rose Monique — Application for registration No 15 856 743

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 1929/2017-1

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 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-578/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — CA Consumer Finance 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.01005602.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/56






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — CA Consumer Finance v ECB
(Case T-578/18)
(2018/C 436/80)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CA Consumer Finance (Massy, 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 which are, in essence, identical to those relied on in Case T-576/18, Crédit agricole v ECB.
Case T-260/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Sweden v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Decoupled direct aids — On-the-spot checks — Remote sensing — Assessment of risk factors — Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned — Assessment of the financial loss — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-09-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU direct payments, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality








C_2018408EN.01004701.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/47






Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Sweden v Commission
(Case T-260/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Decoupled direct aids - On-the-spot checks - Remote sensing - Assessment of risk factors - Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned - Assessment of the financial loss - Proportionality))
(2018/C 408/59)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: initially, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, N. Otte Widgren, C. Meyer-Seitz and U. Persson, and subsequently L. Swedenborg, A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 Μarch 2016 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) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it concerns decoupled direct aids paid to the Kingdom of Sweden totalling EUR 8 811 286,44 for the claim year 2013 and, in the alternative, the reduction of the amount of those decoupled direct aids excluded from financing in the amount of EUR 1 022 259,46.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 Μarch 2016 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 concerns decoupled direct aids paid to the Kingdom of Sweden totalling EUR 8 811 286,44 for the claim year 2013;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Case T-572/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YS 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.01006101.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/61






Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YS v Commission
(Case T-572/18)
(2018/C 408/79)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: YS (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 14 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.






1.


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.










2.


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










3.


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










4.


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.