do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9177 — Sumitomo/Metal One/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, iron and steel product, mass media, merger control, piping, real estate business, wholesale selling








C_2018428EN.01000301.xml










27.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9177 — Sumitomo/Metal One/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 428/03)

1.   
On 19 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:






—


Sumitomo (Japan),










—


Metal One (Japan), controlled by the Mitsubishi Corporation (Japan),










—


Metal One Pipe & Tubular Products Inc. (Japan).




Sumitomo and Metal One acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Metal One Pipe & Tubular Products Inc. Metal One Pipe & Tubular Products Inc. is previously solely-controlled by Metal One.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Sumitomo: an integrated trading and investment company which is active in various sectors such as (i) metal products; (ii) transportation and construction systems; (iii) infrastructure; (iv) media and digital related products; (v) living related and real estate; and (vi) mineral resources, energy, chemicals and electronics,
—   Metal One: an integrated steel trading company which supplies various steel products in Japan and internationally,
—   Metal One Pipe & Tubular Products Inc.: wholesale steel pipe and piping equipment distribution.


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.9177 — Sumitomo/Metal One/JV
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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018428EN.01000201.xml










27.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 November 2018
(2018/C 428/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1363 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,70 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4612 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88440 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2930 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1332 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7290 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,918 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,90 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2920 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6588 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,9459 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5664 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5011 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8906 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6709 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5604 




KRW


South Korean won


1 281,86 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7322 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8869 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4305 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 447,94 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7588 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,559 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,3045 




THB


Thai baht


37,543 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3808 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2106 




INR


Indian rupee


80,5385 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-711/18: Action brought on 27 November 2018 — Wyld v EUIPO — Kaufland Warenhandel (wyld)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019035EN.01003202.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/32






Action brought on 27 November 2018 — Wyld v EUIPO — Kaufland Warenhandel (wyld)
(Case T-711/18)
(2019/C 35/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Wyld GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Warenhandel GmbH & Co. KG

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘wyld’ — Application for registration No 14 525 562

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 in Case R 2621/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and to allow the application for registration of the European Union trade mark No 14 525 562 ‘wyld’, which has so far been refused;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-745/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 27 November 2018 — JA v Skarb Państwa, represented by the Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Senat Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prezes Rady Ministrów, Minister Sprawiedliwości and Minister Finansów
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, receivership, remuneration of work, tax harmonisation, tax law








C_2019164EN.01000301.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 27 November 2018 — JA v Skarb Państwa, represented by the Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Senat Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prezes Rady Ministrów, Minister Sprawiedliwości and Minister Finansów
(Case C-745/18)
(2019/C 164/04)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: JA

Respondent: Skarb Państwa, represented by the Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Senat Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prezes Rady Ministrów, Minister Sprawiedliwości and Minister Finansów

Question referred

Should Articles 73 and 78(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the preceding Article 11.A(1)(a) and 11.A(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, (2) understood in the light of the general principles of a Member State’s liability to provide compensation for damage, as established in the case-law of the Court of Justice (including, in particular, in the judgments of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others, C-6/90 and C-9/90, EU:C:1991:428; and of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame and Others, C-46/93 and C-48/93, EU:C:1996:79), be interpreted as meaning that, with effect from 1 May 2004, they give rise to an obligation on a Member State which acceded to the European Union on that date to lay down regulations providing for the granting to a trustee in bankruptcy or insolvency of remuneration increased by the amount of value added tax (VAT) payable on that remuneration?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9151 — IFM/Trafigura/Simba Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment, logistics, merger control, provision of services








C_2018464EN.01000101.xml










27.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 464/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9151 — IFM/Trafigura/Simba Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 464/01)
On 27 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 32018M9151. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-824/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark H 2 O+ — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01004401.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/44






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)
(Case T-824/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark H 2 O+ - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 44/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Walicka, then by S. Palmero Cabezas and H.J. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 (Case R 499/2017-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark H 2 O+.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders H2O Plus LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Case T-315/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — EEAS — Posting — Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia — Decision refusing to extend the posting — Interest of the service — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ethiopia, European official, Union delegation, diplomatic profession, equal treatment, indemnification








C_2019044EN.01003102.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/31






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Hebberecht v EEAS
(Case T-315/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - EEAS - Posting - Post of Head of Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia - Decision refusing to extend the posting - Interest of the service - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment))
(2019/C 44/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Fourmies, France) (represented by B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS communicated to the applicant on 3 February 2017 rejecting her complaint against the decision of the EEAS not to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia and, second, compensation for non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 30 June 2016 refusing the request of Ms Chantal Hebberecht to extend her posting as Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia by one year.










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Refusal of transfer — Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, data protection, indemnification, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2019044EN.01002001.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/20






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — VG v Commission
(Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and information relating to a decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the protection of individuals - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Refusal of transfer - Articles 7, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Non-contractual liability))
(2019/C 44/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VG, as the sole heir of Ms (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, and subsequently by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Simon, and subsequently by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 2 February and 19 April 2016 rejecting MS’ application for access to the documents concerning him and of 16 June 2016 rejecting his request to transfer to him the personal data concerning him contained in the documents covered by that application for access and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by Ms on account of that refusal of access and transfer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2016 rejecting MS’ request to transfer to him certain personal data;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay VG, as the sole heir of MS, a sum of EUR 5 000;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders VG and the Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case T-756/17: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark WORLD LAW GROUP — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, legal aid, provision of services, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01006601.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/66






Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP)
(Case T-756/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark WORLD LAW GROUP - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2019/C 44/86)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P.-C. Thielen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2017 (Case R 329/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign WORLD LAW GROUP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case T-252/18: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — European Anglers Alliance v Council
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: catch by species, catch quota, equal treatment, fishing area, fishing rights, industrial fishing, principle of proportionality, recreational fishing, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2019044EN.01008301.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/83






Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — European Anglers Alliance v Council
(Case T-252/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/115)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Case C-741/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft. (OPS Újpest Kft.) against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2018 in Case T-708/17 OPS Ujpest v Commission
Date: 2018-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to disadvantaged groups, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, integration of people with disabilities, limitation of legal proceedings, official language, principle of legal certainty, publication of a law, worker with disabilities








C_2019112EN.01001401.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/14






Appeal brought on 27 November 2018 by OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft. (OPS Újpest Kft.) against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2018 in Case T-708/17 OPS Ujpest v Commission
(Case C-741/18 P)
(2019/C 112/18)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft. (OPS Újpest Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

In its appeal, OPS Újpest Kft. submits that the Court of Justice should:






—


Declare the appeal admissible and well-founded and, accordingly, set aside the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2018 in Case T-708/17 OPS Újpest v Commission, and notified to the appellant on 2 October 2018;










—


Furthermore, refer the case back to the General Court so that it may rule on the second, third and fourth grounds of inadmissibility raised;










—


Moreover, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, unless the case is referred back to the General Court, in which case the appellant requests that no ruling be given on the abovementioned costs, but rather that they be reserved for the final judgment.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







1.


First ground of appeal
The appellant submits that the principle of legal certainty requires that interested persons know precisely the scope of the obligations under the legislation to which they are subject, which is guaranteed where the legislation concerned has been duly published in the official language of the intended recipient.
In the case of a legal act which has not been duly published, the procedural time-limits relating to notification can begin to run only from the date on which the first notification is properly issued.










2.


Second ground of appeal
Inasmuch as the Commission claimed in the proceedings at first instance that the application was inadmissible as the decisions in respect of which annulment was sought were not final, since the investigation was ongoing, a judicial decision in that regard must come before any decision on the other questions concerning admissibility.