do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9054 — Broadcom/CA) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control








C_2018412EN.01000101.xml










14.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9054 — Broadcom/CA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 412/01)
On 12 October 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 32018M9054. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-639/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel (Germany) lodged on 12 October 2018 — KH v Sparkasse Südholstein
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, distance selling, financial services, interest, loan, provision of services








C_2019025EN.01001701.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel (Germany) lodged on 12 October 2018 — KH v Sparkasse Südholstein
(Case C-639/18)
(2019/C 25/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Kiel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KH

Defendant: Sparkasse Südholstein

Questions referred







1.


Within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1), is a contract concluded ‘under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme run by the supplier’, by means of which an existing loan agreement is amended solely with regard to the interest rate agreed (follow-up interest agreement), if a branch bank concludes loan agreements for the purpose of financing an immovable property secured by mortgage only at its commercial premises, but in ongoing business dealings concludes contracts to amend loan agreements that have already been agreed in some cases also by making exclusive use of means of distance communication?










2.


Does a ‘contract concerning financial services’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC exist if an existing loan agreement is amended solely with regard to the agreed interest rate (follow-up interest agreement), without extending the term of the loan or altering the amount of the loan?






(1)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).
Case T-617/18: Action brought on 12 October 2018 — ZH/ECHA
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), staff assessment, staff regulations (EU), temporary employment








C_2018436EN.01006301.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/63






Action brought on 12 October 2018 — ZH/ECHA
(Case T-617/18)
(2018/C 436/87)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZH (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the applicant’s 2016 appraisal report;










—


annul also, in so far as necessary, the decision of ECHA of 2 July 2018, notified to the applicant on 3 July 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the 2016 appraisal report;










—


order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all 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 a violation of Article 2.2 of the ECHA Decision of 18 June 2015 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 15(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’) and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the procedural framework to conduct appraisal reports as laid down by the ECHA decision and in particular by Article 7, as well as a violation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by analogy to temporary staff by virtue of article 15 of the CEOS.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appreciation by the reporting officer, with regard to the negative criticism of the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9086 — 3i/Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension/Tampnet) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, supplementary pension, telecommunications








C_2019123EN.01000301.xml










2.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9086 — 3i/Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension/Tampnet)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 123/05)
On 12 October 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 32018M9086. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-642/18: Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Ceuta, Community of Madrid, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, prevention of pollution, waste, waste management








C_2018445EN.01001201.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/12






Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-642/18)
(2018/C 445/15)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, E. Sanfrutos Cano and F. Thiran, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,






—


that, by not adopting waste management plans in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or by not having revised those plans in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC concerning the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous City of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) and Article 30(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC; and










—


that, by not officially informing the Commission of the adoption or revision of the waste management plans concerning the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous City of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC;














—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned subparagraphs and articles of Directive 2008/98/EC by not adopting the required measures before 14 September 2017, the date laid down in its reasoned opinion of 14 July 2017.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.
Case C-640/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 12 October 2018 — Wagram Invest SA v État belge (Belgian State)
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: debt, financial accounting, public limited company, publication of accounts, purchase








C_2019004EN.01001401.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 12 October 2018 — Wagram Invest SA v État belge (Belgian State)
(Case C-640/18)
(2019/C 4/18)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Wagram Invest SA

Respondent: État belge (Belgian State)

Questions referred







1.


Does the notion of a true and fair view under Article 2(3) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, (1) where a public limited company purchases a financial fixed asset, authorise a discount relating to a non-interest-bearing debt becoming due after one year to be entered as a charge in the profit and loss account, and the acquisition price of the fixed asset to be entered as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of that discount, in the light of the valuation principles set out in Article 32 of that directive?










2.


Must the expression ‘in exceptional cases’ that is a proviso for application of Article 2(5) of the Council Directive of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the [EEC] Treaty [now Article 50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies and that allows application of a (different) provision of that directive to be excluded be interpreted as meaning that the provision in question can apply only on condition that it is found that compliance with the provisions of the directive, together with, where applicable, additional disclosure in the notes on the accounts in accordance with Article 2(4) of that directive, cannot adversely affect compliance with the principle that a true and fair view must be given?










3.


Must Article 2(4) of the aforementioned directive be applied as a priority with the effect that the possibility, under Article 2(5) of that directive, of excluding application of a provision of the directive can be utilised only if additional disclosure cannot ensure effective implementation of the principle that a true and fair view must be given enshrined in Article 2(3) of that directive and, even then, only in exceptional cases?






(1)  Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9089 — Hellman &amp; Friedman/Concardis Payment Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic money, merger control, private equity








C_2018398EN.01000302.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9089 — Hellman & Friedman/Concardis Payment Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 398/06)
On 12 October 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 32018M9089. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-641/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2018 — LG and Others v Rina S.p.A. and Ente Registro Italiano Navale
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, ferryboat, indemnification, jurisdiction, maritime safety, roadworthiness tests, transport accident








C_2019025EN.01001801.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2018 — LG and Others v Rina S.p.A. and Ente Registro Italiano Navale
(Case C-641/18)
(2019/C 25/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: LG and Others

Defendants: Rina S.p.A. and Ente Registro Italiano Navale

Question referred

Should Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 be interpreted — particularly in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and recital 16 of Directive 2009/15/EC (2) — as preventing a court of a Member State from waiving its jurisdiction by granting jurisdictional immunity to private entities and legal persons carrying out classification and/or certification activities, established in that Member State, in respect of the performance of those classification and/or certification activities on behalf of a non-EU State, in a dispute concerning compensation for death and personal injury caused by the sinking of a passenger ferry and liability for negligent conduct?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2009/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ 2009 L 131, p. 47).
Case T-621/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 October 2018 — Taminco v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Publication of the conclusion of the examination carried out by EFSA on the review of the approval of the active substance thiram — Claim for confidential treatment of certain sections — Refusal to grant confidentiality — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Chemicals Agency, confidentiality, dangerous substance, dissemination of information, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, powers of the institutions (EU), rights of the defence








C_2019016EN.01004601.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/46






Order of the President of the General Court of 12 October 2018 — Taminco v EFSA
(Case T-621/17 R)
((Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Publication of the conclusion of the examination carried out by EFSA on the review of the approval of the active substance thiram - Claim for confidential treatment of certain sections - Refusal to grant confidentiality - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))
(2019/C 16/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Taminco BVBA (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of EFSA of 18 July 2017 rejecting the claims for confidential treatment made in the context of the application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance thiram.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The order of 19 September 2017 delivered in Case T-621/17 R is cancelled.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-637/18: Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Hungary
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Central Hungary, Northern Hungary, Southern Transdanubia, air quality, pollution control, prevention of pollution, sampling








C_2018427EN.01003301.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/33






Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-637/18)
(2018/C 427/42)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen y K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought by the applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit value applicable to the concentration of PM10 in parts of Budapest (HU0001) and the valley of Sajó (HU0008) each year from 1 February 2005, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; (1)











—


declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit values applicable to the concentration of PM10 in the area of Pécs (HU0006) each year from 11 June 2011 — with the exception of 2014 — Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;










—


declare that, from 11 June 2010, Hungary has failed to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 23(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XV to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe which provides, in particular, in the second paragraph of that article, that the exceedance period of those limit values should be kept as short as possible;










—


order Hungary to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

From 1 February 2005, the daily limit value of PM10 was exceeded in two air quality zones and, from 11 June 2011, in one additional zone. In spite of that infringement of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50, Hungary, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, has not adopted any appropriate measures within the air quality plans so that the exceedance period could be kept as short as possible.
The ineffectiveness of the measures at issue is clear from, inter alia, the period of exceeding the limit values, the level and evolution of those limit values, and from the detailed examination of the air quality plans adopted by the Hungarian authorities.


(1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018370EN.01000301.xml










12.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 October 2018
(2018/C 370/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1575 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,00 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4603 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87490 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4120 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1430 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5063 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,848 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3167 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6673 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,9401 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6314 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5102 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0723 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7852 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5969 




KRW


South Korean won


1 320,70 




ZAR


South African rand


16,8958 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9982 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4170 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 634,51 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8140 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,540 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,9207 




THB


Thai baht


37,914 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3270 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1014 




INR


Indian rupee


85,7615 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.