do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-712/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2018 — ZR, AR, BS
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, administrative sanction, document storage, freedom to provide services, posted worker








C_2019122EN.01000302.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2018 — ZR, AR, BS
(Case C-712/18)
(2019/C 122/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: ZR, AR and BS

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay or to report to the Central Coordination Office (ZKO notifications), provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?






(1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1708 of 13 November 2018 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Însurăței’ (PDO)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Braila, Romania, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, white wine








L_2018286EN.01000101.xml










14.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 286/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1708
of 13 November 2018
         
conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Însurăței’ (PDO)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined Romania's application to register the name ‘Însurăței’ and published it in the Official Journal of European Union (2).












(2)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(3)


In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Însurăței’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Însurăței’ (PDO) is hereby protected.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 13 November 2018.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 144, 25.4.2018, p. 2.
Case C-310/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Scope — Article 2 — Reproduction rights — Concept of ‘work’ — Taste of a food product)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, foodstuff








C_2019016EN.01001601.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/16






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV
(Case C-310/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Scope - Article 2 - Reproduction rights - Concept of ‘work’ - Taste of a food product))
(2019/C 16/18)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Levola Hengelo BV

Respondent: Smilde Foods BV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding (i) the taste of a food product from being protected by copyright under that directive and (ii) national legislation from being interpreted in such a way that it grants copyright protection to such a taste.


(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case T-241/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 — Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak — Non-harvesting operations — Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, crop production, financial aid, fruit, harvest, infectious disease, microorganism, vegetable








C_2019016EN.01004201.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/42






Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission
(Case T-241/17) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 - Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak - Non-harvesting operations - Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Obligation to state reasons))
(2019/C 16/50)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Pawlicka, K. Straś and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 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 2017 L 39, p. 12), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 4 438 056,66 incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Case C-48/18 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 November 2018 — Toontrack Music AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — European Union trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark EZMIX — Rejection of the application — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Articles 65, 75 and 76 — Descriptive character — Perception of the relevant public — Right to a hearing — Principle of examination by EUIPO of its own motion — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, equal treatment, music, registered trade mark, right to justice, software, trade-mark law








C_2019054EN.01000301.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/3






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 November 2018 — Toontrack Music AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-48/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - European Union trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark EZMIX - Rejection of the application - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Articles 65, 75 and 76 - Descriptive character - Perception of the relevant public - Right to a hearing - Principle of examination by EUIPO of its own motion - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))
(2019/C 54/03)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Appellant: Toontrack Music AB (represented by: L.-E. Ström, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.










2.


Toontrack Music AB shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case T-669/18: Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01005001.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/50






Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern)
(Case T-669/18)
(2019/C 25/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Neoperl AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern) — Application No 16 259 665

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 in Case R 2059/2017-5

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9121 — Michelin/Camso) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, rubber industry, vehicle parts








C_2018410EN.01000601.xml










13.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9121 — Michelin/Camso)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 410/07)

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:






—


Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin (‘Michelin’, France),










—


Camso Inc. (‘Camso’, Canada).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Michelin manufactures tyres for cars, vans, trucks, buses, two-wheels non-motorized vehicles, two-wheels motorized vehicles, aircraft, subway trains and tramways, as well as tyres for industrial and agricultural vehicles;










—


Camso manufactures pneumatic, airless and solid tires, tracks, conversion track systems and OEM undercarriages and serves the industrial, agricultural and power-sport sectors.






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.9121 — Michelin/Camso
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’).