do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9088 — Fricke Holding/Jungheinrich/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural machinery, commercial vehicle, economic concentration, logistics, merger control, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2018429EN.01000101.xml










28.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9088 — Fricke Holding/Jungheinrich/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 429/01)
On 16 November 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 German 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 32018M9088. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-682/18: Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Twitter v EUIPO — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (PERISCOPE)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, registered trade mark, social media, software, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01005502.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/55






Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Twitter v EUIPO — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (PERISCOPE)
(Case T-682/18)
(2019/C 25/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Twitter, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois Perret, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PERISCOPE — Application for registration No 13 837 794

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 in Case R 2315/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it held that (a) the earlier French mark no. 3 366 460 had been genuinely used for ‘software and computer programs’ in class 9, and (b) that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue for goods and services in classes 9, 41, 42 and 45;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal if it joins the proceedings as intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.
Case T-685/18: Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, consultancy, education, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01005701.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/57






Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)
(Case T-685/18)
(2019/C 25/74)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication SCRL (La Hulpe, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SWIFT — Application for registration No 13 370 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 in Case R 476/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018417EN.01000101.xml










16.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 November 2018
(2018/C 417/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1305 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,16 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4622 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88370 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2553 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1365 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6028 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,985 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,99 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2933 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6650 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1047 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5564 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4949 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8558 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6601 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5570 




KRW


South Korean won


1 277,99 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1238 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8448 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4270 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 599,19 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7358 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,614 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,2446 




THB


Thai baht


37,278 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2772 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,0659 




INR


Indian rupee


81,3700 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-552/16: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Opinion of the CCA — Non-challengeable act — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, appointment of staff, competition (EU), damages, managing director, servant (EU)








C_2019044EN.01005601.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/56






Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission
(Case T-552/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA - Rejection of the candidature - Opinion of the CCA - Non-challengeable act - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2019/C 44/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of ‘the [d]ecision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA) and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm the applicant has allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


OT shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-75/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-576/16: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Lis pendens — Rejection of a request for assistance — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, appointment of staff, competition (EU), damages, managing director, servant (EU)








C_2019044EN.01005602.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/56






Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission
(Case T-576/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA - Rejection of the candidature - Lis pendens - Rejection of a request for assistance - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
(2019/C 44/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, annulment (i) of ‘the decision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA), (ii) of the decision of 9 April 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against that decision and the request for assistance, and, (iii) of the decision of 22 October 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against the rejection of her request for assistance, and, on the other hand, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


OT shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-4/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Notification by Romania to the European Commission pursuant to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: Romania
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, bilateral agreement, border control, cross-border cooperation, emergency aid, external border of the EU, multilateral agreement, rail transport, road transport, third country








C_2018417EN.01002601.xml










16.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/26






Notification by Romania to the European Commission pursuant to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
(2018/C 417/08)
Pursuant to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1) Romania notified the European Commission of the following agreements concluded:






—


Agreements concerning the joint control provided for by Article 18 — No amendments to the previous situation.











—


Agreements concluded in accordance with Annex VI pct. 1.1.1 for ensuring effective checks on persons, while ensuring the safety and smooth flow of road traffic, incl. channelling and blocking the traffic — Not applicable.










—


Bilateral agreements with third countries for establishing shared border crossing points, according to Annex VI pct. 1.1.4.1 — Not applicable.










—


Bilateral or multilateral agreements for conducting checks on train passengers and on railway staff, according to Annex VI pct. 1.2.1 — Not applicable.










—


Bilateral agreements with third countries concluded on the basis of Annex VII, pct. 7 concerning the entry and exit of members of rescue services, police, fire brigades acting in emergency situations as well as border guards crossing the border in exercise of their professional tasks: Agreement from 21 February 2014 between the Government of Romania and the Government of the Republic of Moldova on mutual assistance for the cross-border interventions in medical emergencies.






(1)  OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1.
Notification by Romania to the European Commission pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: Romania
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, border control, carriage of goods, derogation from EU law, frontier, international agreement, international transport, national law, rail transport, road transport








C_2018417EN.01002701.xml










16.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/27






Notification by Romania to the European Commission pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
(2018/C 417/09)
Pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1) Romania notified the European Commission of the exceptions to the rules regarding the crossing of the external borders referred to in article 5(2)(a):
Article 8 paragraph 2^1 of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 105/2001 on the regime of the Romanian state border, with latest amendments, read in conjunction with article 9 of the Government Decision no. 445/2002 approving the methodological norms of GEO no. 105/2001, establish, as an exception from the rule of crossing the border by persons, means of transportation, goods or other merchandise through the border crossing points opened for international traffic or through the local border traffic points, that it may be performed also through other places, only in the situations described by the Schengen Borders Code or by the bilateral documents concluded by Romania with other countries.
Article 9, paragraph 4 of the same legal act provides for the following: ‘The occasional opening of border crossing points with a view to carry out festives or religious activities, as well as their opening hours are approved by the general inspector of the Border Police’;

Article 12 of the Convention between Romania and the Republic of Hungary on road and rail traffic control, concluded on 27 April 2004, provides for the following:






‘(1)



In situations justified by economic and social interests, the authorities competent for controlling the border traffic of the contracting states may approve the occasional opening of the state border with a view to allow for crossing the border by persons and goods outside the permanent border crossing points.











(2)



The request for crossing the state border outside the border crossing points shall be submitted at least 30 (thirty) days before the planned date.’






(1)  OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1.
Case T-681/18: Action brought on 16 November 2018 — "Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, machine tool, machine-tool industry, registered trade mark, tool industry, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01005501.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/55






Action brought on 16 November 2018 — "Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)
(Case T-681/18)
(2019/C 25/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZAO "Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark STAYER — European Union trade mark No 4 675 881

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 in Case R 1940/2017-5

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 18 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9161 — Brookfield/M Finance Capital/ECLA Paris Massy-Palaiseau Companies) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 81/04
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control, real estate business, renewable energy, student residence








C_2021081EN.01000401.xml










10.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9161 — Brookfield/M Finance Capital/ECLA Paris Massy-Palaiseau Companies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 81/04)
On 16 November 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 32018M9161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9146 — ArcelorMittal/Nippon Steel &amp; Sumitomo Metal Corporation/Essar Steel India) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control








C_2018447EN.01000101.xml










12.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9146 — ArcelorMittal/Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation/Essar Steel India)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 447/01)
On 16 November 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 32018M9146. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9061 — GETEC Wärme &amp; Effizienz/Pionierwerk) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, telecommunications, water supply








C_2019058EN.01000101.xml










14.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9061 — GETEC Wärme & Effizienz/Pionierwerk)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 58/01)
On 16 November 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 German language 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 32018MDEC. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.