do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1605 of 25 October 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Burundi, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








L_2018268EN.01001801.xml










26.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 268/18








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1605
of 25 October 2018
         
implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 of 1 October 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi, and in particular Article 13(4) thereof (1),


Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi.












(2)


Additional identifying information concerning one natural person is available.












(3)


Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2015/1755 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 October 2018.


For the Council


The President

J. BOGNER-STRAUSS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 257, 2.10.2015, p. 1.




ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2015/1755, entry 3 under the heading ‘List of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 2’ is replaced by the following:









 


Name


Identifying Information


Grounds for designation




‘3.


Mathias/Joseph NIYONZIMA
alias KAZUNGU


DOB: 6.3.1956; 2.1.1967
POB: Kanyosha Commune, Mubimbi, Bujumbura-Rural Province, Burundi
Registration number (SNR): O/00064
Burundian nationality.
Passport number: OP0053090


Officer of the National Intelligence Service. Responsible for obstructing the search for a political solution in Burundi by inciting violence and acts of repression during the demonstrations that started on 26 April 2015 following the announcement of the presidential candidacy of President Nkurunziza. Responsible for helping to train, coordinate and arm the Imbonerakure paramilitary militias, including outside Burundi, who are responsible for acts of violence, repression and serious human rights abuses in Burundi.’
Special Report No 26/2018 — A series of delays in Customs IT systems: what went wrong?
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU customs procedure, EU programme, common tariff policy, customs cooperation, customs harmonisation, customs regulations, customs union, electronic government, information system, innovation








C_2018385EN.01000401.xml










25.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/4






Special Report No 26/2018
A series of delays in Customs IT systems: what went wrong?
(2018/C 385/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 26/2018 ‘A series of delays in Customs IT systems: what went wrong?’ 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 C-527/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Boston Scientific Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual and industrial property – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 – Scope – Medical device incorporating as an integral part a substance which, used separately, may be considered to be a medicinal product – Directive 93/42/EEC – Article 1(4) – Concept of ‘administrative authorisation procedure’)
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, drug surveillance, intellectual property, market approval, medical device, medicinal product








C_2019004EN.01000801.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/8






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Boston Scientific Ltd
(Case C-527/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Scope - Medical device incorporating as an integral part a substance which, used separately, may be considered to be a medicinal product - Directive 93/42/EEC - Article 1(4) - Concept of ‘administrative authorisation procedure’)
(2019/C 4/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Party to the main proceedings

Boston Scientific Ltd

In the presence of: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a prior authorisation procedure, under Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, for a device incorporating as an integral part a substance, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that directive as amended, cannot be treated in the same way, for the purposes of applying that regulation, as a marketing authorisation procedure for that substance under Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, even if that substance was the subject of the assessment provided for in the first and second paragraphs of section 7.4 of Annex I to Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47.


(1)  OJ C 402, 17.11.2017.
Case T-585/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, company in difficulties, control of State aid, corporation tax, economic reconstruction, financial loss, tax relief








C_2019044EN.01004702.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/47






Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission
(Case T-585/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
(2019/C 44/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Cheverny Investments Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: H. Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg, R. Staab and S. Rasch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R.Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action;










2.


The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Cheverny Investments Ltd.;










3.


The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case T-619/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — CB v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, company in difficulties, control of State aid, corporation tax, economic reconstruction, financial loss, tax relief








C_2019044EN.01005101.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/51






Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — CB v Commission
(Case T-619/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
(2019/C 44/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: CB (represented by: initially, T. Hackemann and H. Horstkotte, then, T. Hackemann and F. von Bredow, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action;










2.


The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by CB;










3.


The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
Case T-729/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — PO and Others v EEAS (Civil Service – EEAS – Remuneration – Officials posted to the Beijing delegation – Family allowance – Education allowance for the school year 2015/2016 – Second sentence of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations – Exceedance of the statutory ceiling for third countries – Decision to cap the reimbursement of education costs in exceptional circumstances – General Implementing Provisions)
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, European official, Union delegation, allowances and expenses, education costs, education grant, family benefit, posted worker








C_2019004EN.01002401.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/24






Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — PO and Others v EEAS
(Case T-729/16) (1)

(Civil Service - EEAS - Remuneration - Officials posted to the Beijing delegation - Family allowance - Education allowance for the school year 2015/2016 - Second sentence of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Exceedance of the statutory ceiling for third countries - Decision to cap the reimbursement of education costs in exceptional circumstances - General Implementing Provisions)
(2019/C 4/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: PO, PP, PQ and PR (represented initially by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, and subsequently by: N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers).

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the EEAS not to reimburse the applicants, in respect of the school year 2015/2016, for the education costs exceeding an amount corresponding to the statutory ceiling for third countries (six times the basic ceiling) increased by EUR 10 000 (EUR 27 788,40 in total).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PO, PP, PQ and PR to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service (EEAS).






(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
Case C-667/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 25 October 2018 — Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative dispute resolution, insurance contract, legal expenses








C_2019025EN.01002202.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 25 October 2018 — Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad
(Case C-667/18)
(2019/C 25/27)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone

Defendant: Ministerraad

Question referred

Should the term ‘proceedings’ in Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance be interpreted as including extrajudicial and judicial mediation proceedings, as provided for in Articles 1723/1 to 1737 of the Belgian Gerechtelijk Wetboek (Judicial Code)?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1.
Case C-413/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 42 – Award – Margin of appreciation of the contracting authority – Detailed formulation of the technical specifications)
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, medical device, medical diagnosis, principle of proportionality, supplies contract, technical specification, tendering








C_2019004EN.01000501.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/5






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB
(Case C-413/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 42 - Award - Margin of appreciation of the contracting authority - Detailed formulation of the technical specifications)
(2019/C 4/06)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB

In the presence of: Kauno Dainavos poliklinika VšĮ

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 and 42 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not imposing on the contracting authority, in establishing technical specifications in a procurement procedure concerning the acquisition of medical supplies, by principle, prioritising either the importance of the individual characteristics of the medical supplies or the importance of the result of their functioning, but requiring that the technical specifications, as a whole, comply with the principles of equality of treatment and proportionality. It is for the national court to assess whether, in the dispute before it, the technical specifications at issue comply with those requirements.


(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Case T-122/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN) (EU trade mark – Cancellation proceeding – European Union word mark DEVIN – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Geographical name – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019004EN.01002601.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/26






Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)
(Case T-122/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceeding - European Union word mark DEVIN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Geographical name - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 4/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Devin AD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Di Natale and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 (Case R 579/2016-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Devin AD and Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 579/2016-2);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Devin AD;










4.


Orders Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case T-626/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Sky Deutschland and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-10-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, company in difficulties, control of State aid, corporation tax, economic reconstruction, financial loss, tax relief








C_2019044EN.01005301.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/53






Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Sky Deutschland and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen v Commission
(Case T-626/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
(2019/C 44/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Sky Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sky Deutschland AG, (Unterföhring, Germany), and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG (Unterföhring) (represented by: initially, A. Cordewener, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, then, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll-Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll-Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action;










2.


The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sky Deutschland GmbH and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG;










3.


The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.