do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-791/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ST ANDREWS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Geographical origin — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, consultancy, cultural event, education, provision of services, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_2019025EN.01004101.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/41






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)
(Case T-791/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ST ANDREWS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Geographical origin - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 25/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: St. Andrews Links Ltd (St Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hattier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2017 (Case R 93/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ST ANDREWS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders St. Andrews Links Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Case T-687/18: Action brought on 20 November 2018 — Pilatus Bank v ECB
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, legal basis, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, rule of law








C_2019025EN.01005901.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/59






Action brought on 20 November 2018 — Pilatus Bank v ECB
(Case T-687/18)
(2019/C 25/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta'Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: ECB

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decisions dated 10 September 2018 to the effect that any communication of Pilatus Bank plc to the ECB needs to be made through the ‘Competent Person’ or include the ‘Competent Person’s’ approval as an attachment;










—


order the defendant to pay all costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s decision lacks any legal basis in national or European law.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated substantive and procedural rights of the applicant pursuant to the Single Supervisory Mechanism Regulation, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rule of law, in particular the right to access to file, the right to make use of remedies, the right to be represented by external counsel and the right to the confidentiality of communications with the counsel.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed a détournement de pouvoir.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the requirement of an appropriately reasoned decision.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right to be heard.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.
Corrigendum to notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the names of companies subject to the anti-dumping rate for cooperating non-sampled companies (OJ C 414, 20.11.2014)
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: China, anti-dumping measure, ceramics, household article, import (EU), originating product








C_2018420EN.01000801.xml










20.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 420/8






Corrigendum to notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the names of companies subject to the anti-dumping rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
(
Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 414 of 20 November 2014
)
(2018/C 420/05)
On page 9, in the table, in the second column of the third row:

for:


‘Guangdong Jinqiuangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd.’,


read:


‘Guangdong Jinqiangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd.’.
Case T-683/18: Action brought on 20 November 2018 — Conte v EUIPO (CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM)
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aromatic plant, beverage, catering industry, confectionery product, dairy ice cream, flavouring, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01005601.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/56






Action brought on 20 November 2018 — Conte v EUIPO (CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM)
(Case T-683/18)
(2019/C 25/73)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Santa Conte (Naples, Italy) (represented by: D. Demichelis, E. Ortaglio and G. Iorio Fiorelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM in the colours black, olive green, light green and white — Application for registration No 16 176 968

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2181/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present action, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the examiner and before the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 71(1), read in conjunction with Article 95(1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Lack of assessment of a fact relevant to registration of the contested mark;










—


Lack of impartiality and care in the assessment of the meaning of the contested mark and of the perception of that mark on the part of the relevant public;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(f), read in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Misidentification of the relevant public and of the perception of the contested mark;










—


Mark not contrary to public policy.
Case T-854/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Barata v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2015 promotion procedure — Certification procedure — Exclusion from the definitive list of officials authorised to follow the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, in-service training, promotion, rights of the defence








C_2019025EN.01003901.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/39






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Barata v Parliament
(Case T-854/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion procedure - Certification procedure - Exclusion from the definitive list of officials authorised to follow the training programme - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence))
(2019/C 25/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: João Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, lawyers, and J. Grayston, solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the Parliament’s decision dated 29 January 2016 and the confirmatory decision dated 29 March 2016 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials authorised to participate in 2015 in the training programme in respect of the 2015 certification procedure, secondly, of the decision dated 25 August 2016 rejecting the complaint, thirdly, of Notice of internal competition 2015/023, communicated to the staff on 18 September 2015, and, fourthly, of the draft list of officials selected to participate in the training programme in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr João Miguel Barata to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018420EN.01000101.xml










20.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 420/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 November 2018
(2018/C 420/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1427 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,89 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4625 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89083 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2815 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1391 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6493 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,013 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3293 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6666 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0735 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5660 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5055 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9491 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6740 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5684 




KRW


South Korean won


1 287,63 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0122 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9349 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4253 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 672,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7848 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,020 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,2885 




THB


Thai baht


37,623 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2907 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1660 




INR


Indian rupee


81,8825 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-36/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark Celeson — Earlier international word mark CELESIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019025EN.01004201.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/42






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson)
(Case T-36/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Celeson - Earlier international word mark CELESIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 25/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Celesio AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2017 (Case R 1004/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Celesio and Asahi Intecc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8955 — Takeda/Shire) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 270/03
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bio-industry, economic concentration, merger control, orphan disease, pharmaceutical industry, therapeutics








C_2020270EN.01000301.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8955 — Takeda/Shire)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 270/03)
On 20 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32018M8955. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-684/18: Action brought on 20 November 2018 — ZV v Commission
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), job vacancy, mediator, professional qualifications








C_2019035EN.01002401.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/24






Action brought on 20 November 2018 — ZV v Commission
(Case T-684/18)
(2019/C 35/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZV (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the Commission, notified by letter of 12 February 2018, rejecting the applicant’s candidacy for the post of deputy mediator and filling the position by appointing another candidate;










—


order the Commission to pay 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 misuse of powers and of procedure. In this regard, the applicant claims that the vacancy notice COM/2017/1739 did not make it possible to ensure that the candidate chosen genuinely possessed the qualifications and experience necessary for that vacant position. Moreover, the applicant submits that the candidate whose application was selected did not have all the required qualifications, in particular experience in mediation and in-depth legal knowledge of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Commission Decision C(2002/601) of 4 March 2002 on the reinforced Mediation Service, in that Article 6(3) provides that the President of the Commission is to appoint the deputy mediators on a proposal by the Mediator, but does not provide for a pre-selection procedure or for the drawing-up of a list of selected candidates. However, in the present case, the consultative committee for appointments organised a pre-selection procedure and submitted to the Mediator the three applications which it had selected. According to the applicant, it follows that the Mediator did not examine all the applications and therefore infringed the provision referred to above when he proposed that the President of the Commission appoint the selected candidate.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons vitiating the contested decisions.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the vacancy notice COM/2017/1739 and manifest error of assessment. In that regard, the applicant submits that, unlike her, the selected candidate does not meet the requirements set out in the notice referred to above in order to fill the position at issue, that is, inter alia, good knowledge of the Staff Regulations and of the rules applicable to officials and other members of staff, together with experience in conflict resolution.
Case C-147/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, Ustinia Cvas and Others v Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31 — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope — Derogation — Article 1(3) — Directive 89/391/EEC — Article 2(2) — Work performed by foster parents)
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, custody, guardianship, occupational safety, public service employee








C_2019025EN.01000501.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, Ustinia Cvas and Others v Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța
(Case C-147/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31 - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope - Derogation - Article 1(3) - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2(2) - Work performed by foster parents))
(2019/C 25/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, Ustinia Cvas, Silvica Jianu, Dumitra Bocu, Cader Aziz, Georgeta Crângaşu, Sema Cutlacai

Respondent: Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, must be interpreted as meaning that the work performed by a foster parent under an employment contract with a public authority, which consists in taking in a child, integrating that child into his or her household and ensuring, on a continuous basis, the harmonious upbringing and education of that child, does not come within the scope of Directive 2003/88.


(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-730/17: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, contract, disclosure of information, fixing of prices, invoicing, legal expenses, supplier








C_2019044EN.01008202.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/82






Order of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case T-730/17) (1)

(2019/C 44/112)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Case T-790/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ST ANDREWS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Geographical origin — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, consultancy, cultural event, education, provision of services, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_2019025EN.01004001.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/40






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)
(Case T-790/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ST ANDREWS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Geographical origin - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 25/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: St. Andrews Links Ltd (St Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hattier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2017 (Case R 92/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ST ANDREWS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders St. Andrews Links Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Case C-723/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Orăștie (Romania) lodged on 20 November 2018 — EV v Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române-Brigada Autostrăzi și misiuni speciale — Biroul de Poliție Autostrada A1 Râmnicu Vâlcea — Deva (IGPR)
Date: 2018-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: jurisdiction, penalty, proof, traffic offence








C_2019246EN.01000301.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Orăștie (Romania) lodged on 20 November 2018 — EV v Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române-Brigada Autostrăzi și misiuni speciale — Biroul de Poliție Autostrada A1 Râmnicu Vâlcea — Deva (IGPR)
(Case C-723/18)
(2019/C 246/03)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Orăștie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EV

Defendant: Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române-Brigada Autostrăzi și misiuni speciale — Biroul de Poliție Autostrada A1 Râmnicu Vâlcea — Deva (IGPR)
By order of 8 May 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Judecătoria Orăștie (Romania) by decision of 5 November 2018.