do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-33/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk — Austria) — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Labour law — Posting of workers in order to carry out construction works — Reporting of workers — Retention and translation of payslips — Suspension of payments — Payment of a security by the recipient of the services — Surety for a possible fine to be imposed on the service provider)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building industry, fine, freedom to provide services, guarantee, labour law, pay, posted worker, provision of services, suspension of payments








C_2019016EN.01000701.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk — Austria) — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti
(Case C-33/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Labour law - Posting of workers in order to carry out construction works - Reporting of workers - Retention and translation of payslips - Suspension of payments - Payment of a security by the recipient of the services - Surety for a possible fine to be imposed on the service provider))
(2019/C 16/07)
Languages of the case: German and Slovenian

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Čepelnik d.o.o.

Defendant: Michael Vavti

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authorities can order a commissioning party established in that Member State to suspend payments to his contractor established in another Member State, or even to pay a security in an amount equivalent to the price still owed for the works in order to guarantee payment of the fine which might be imposed on that contractor in the event of a proven infringement of the labour law of the first Member State.


(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Special Report No 30/2018 — ‘EU passenger rights are comprehensive but passengers still need to fight for them’
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: air transport, alternative dispute resolution, bus, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, passenger rights, rail transport, traveller








C_2018410EN.01000301.xml










13.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/3






Special Report No 30/2018
‘EU passenger rights are comprehensive but passengers still need to fight for them’
(2018/C 410/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 30/2018 ‘EU passenger rights are comprehensive but passengers still need to fight for them’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018410EN.01000201.xml










13.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 November 2018
(2018/C 410/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1265 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,20 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4597 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87563 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2705 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1368 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5378 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,942 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,72 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2968 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6575 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1282 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5623 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4873 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8242 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6699 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5560 




KRW


South Korean won


1 280,12 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1851 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8447 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4270 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 680,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7133 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,973 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,1800 




THB


Thai baht


37,298 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2217 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8373 




INR


Indian rupee


82,1106 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9056 — Generali CEE/AS) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, insurance, investment company, merger control








C_2018410EN.01000401.xml










13.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9056 — Generali CEE/AS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 410/05)

1.   
On 5 November 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:






—


Generali CEE Holding B.V. (‘Generali CEE’, the Netherlands), controlled by Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. (‘Generali’, Italy),










—


Adriatic Slovenica, Zavarovalna družba, d.d. (‘AS’, Slovenia).




Generali CEE acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of AS.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Generali CEE: provision of life and non-life insurance and related financial services,
—   AS: provision of life and non-life insurance as well as asset management services in Slovenia and Croatia.


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.9056 — Generali CEE/AS
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-672/18: Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Pyke v EUIPO — Paglieri (CLIOMAKEUP)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, auction sale, cosmetic product, electronic commerce, paper, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2019025EN.01005002.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/50






Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Pyke v EUIPO — Paglieri (CLIOMAKEUP)
(Case T-672/18)
(2019/C 25/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pyke Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta and R. Perotti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paglieri SpA (Alessandria, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark CLIOMAKEUP — Application for registration No 11 698 446

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 August 2018 in Case R 2675/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


order Paglieri to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-830/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 –Szentes v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice — Open competition — Admission conditions — Professional experience — Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition — Request for review — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of information in the application form — Manifest error of assessment — Breach of the notice of competition)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), nuclear safety, professional experience








C_2019016EN.01004401.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/44






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 –Szentes v Commission
(Case T-830/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice - Open competition - Admission conditions - Professional experience - Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition - Request for review - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of information in the application form - Manifest error of assessment - Breach of the notice of competition))
(2019/C 16/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gyula Szentes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of the chair of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AD/330/16 — Nuclear safeguards inspectors (AD 7) of 24 February 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition and, second, as far as necessary, of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 29 September 2017 rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Gyula Szentes to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Case C-247/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Union Citizenship — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State — Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, European citizenship, extradition, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, imprisonment, principle of proportionality, public prosecution, residence, third country








C_2019016EN.01001101.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/11






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius
(Case C-247/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Union Citizenship - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State - Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution - Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals - Restriction on free movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality))
(2019/C 16/13)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Denis Raugevicius

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an extradition request has been made by a third country for an EU citizen who has exercised his right to free movement, not for the purpose of prosecution, but for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence, the requested Member State, whose national law prohibits the extradition of its own nationals out of the European Union for the purpose of enforcing a sentence and makes provision for the possibility that such a sentence pronounced abroad may be served on its territory, is required to ensure that that EU citizen, provided that he resides permanently in its territory, receives the same treatment as that accorded to its own nationals in relation to extradition.


(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Case T-44/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CAMOMILLA — Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA — Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Evidence — Counterclaim — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019016EN.01004001.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/40






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)
(Case T-44/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CAMOMILLA - Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA - Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Evidence - Counterclaim - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 16/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Camomilla Srl (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Mussi and H. Chiappetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli, A. Stein and G. Rubino, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 2250/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between CMT and Camomilla.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the counterclaim;










3.


Orders Camomilla Srl and CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT) each to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case T-678/18: Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2019025EN.01005301.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/53






Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE)
(Case T-678/18)
(2019/C 25/68)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Società agricola Giusti Dal Col Srl (Nervesa della Battaglia, Italy) (represented by: M. Pizzigati and A. Mayr, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark GIUSTI WINE

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 in Case R 1154/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9087 — Mondi Štětí/Holzindustrie Maresch/Eco-Investment/Labe Wood) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, wood industry








C_2018410EN.01000501.xml










13.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9087 — Mondi Štětí/Holzindustrie Maresch/Eco-Investment/Labe Wood)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 410/06)

1.   
On 5 November 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:






—


Mondi Štětí a.s. (‘Mondi Štětí’, Czech Republic), controlled by Mondi A.G. (Austria),










—


Holzindustrie Maresch GmbH (‘Holzindustrie Maresch’, Austria),










—


Eco-Investment a.s. (‘Eco-Investment’, Czech Republic),










—


Labe Wood s.r.o. (‘Labe Wood’, Czech Republic).




Mondi Štětí, Holzindustrie Maresch and ECO-INVESTMENT acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Labe Wood.
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract or any other means.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Mondi Štětí: Supply of corrugated base paper and market pulp and manufacturing of high quality kraft paper,
—   for Holzindustrie Maresch: Manufacturing of wood products and specializing in the manufacture of sawn wood,
—   for Eco-Investment: Holding investments in the paper, packaging, meat processing, energy and real estate industries,
—   for Labe Wood: Building and operating a sawmill, production of sawn wood and by-products.


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.9087 — Mondi Štětí/Holzindustrie Maresch/Eco-Investment/Labe Wood
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-705/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2018 — Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v SJ
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, equal treatment, gender equality, part-time employment, promotion, remuneration of work, seniority, working time








C_2019072EN.01000701.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2018 — Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v SJ
(Case C-705/18)
(2019/C 72/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Respondent: SJ

Question referred

Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)? (2)



(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).