do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-705/18: Action brought on 28 November 2018 — Air Liquide Industriegase v Commission
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electricity supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2019035EN.01003101.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/31






Action brought on 28 November 2018 — Air Liquide Industriegase v Commission
(Case T-705/18)
(2019/C 35/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Air Liquide Industriegase GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in full the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;










—


in the alternative, annul the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 insofar as it orders that, in respect of the years 2012 and 2013, baseload consumers with at least 7 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 20 % of published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 hours of full use per year repay more than 15 % of published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 10 % of published network charges;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-693/18, ZY v Commission.
Case C-632/17: Order of the Court of 28 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności (PKO) Bank Polski S.A. v Jacek Michalski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 2008/48/EC — Order for payment procedure based on bank ledger excerpts — Impossible for the court, in the absence of an action brought by a consumer, to examine the unfairness of the contractual terms)
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, injunction, unfair terms of contract








C_2019054EN.01000201.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/2






Order of the Court of 28 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności (PKO) Bank Polski S.A. v Jacek Michalski
(Case C-632/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 2008/48/EC - Order for payment procedure based on bank ledger excerpts - Impossible for the court, in the absence of an action brought by a consumer, to examine the unfairness of the contractual terms))
(2019/C 54/02)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności (PKO) Bank Polski S.A.

Defendant: Jacek Michalski

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 10 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the issue of an order for payment, based on a bank ledger excerpt, as evidence of the existence of a debt arising from a consumer credit agreement, where the court dealing with an application for an order for payment does not have the power to examine whether the terms of that agreement are unfair and to ensure that, in that examination, the information referred to in Article 10 is made available, if the detailed rules for exercising the right to lodge an objection against such an order do not enable observance of the rights which the consumer derives from that directive to be ensured.


(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case T-305/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Klyuyev v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — No urgency)
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2019044EN.01007101.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/71






Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2018 — Klyuyev v Council
(Case T-305/18 R)
((Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - No urgency))
(2019/C 44/93)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, R. Gherson and T. Garner, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs shall be reserved.
Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2018/860 of 7 February 2018 on the Aid Scheme SA.45852 — 2017/C (ex 2017/N) which Germany is planning to implement for Capacity Reserve (OJ L 153, 15.6.2018)
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electricity supply, energy resources, energy supply, security of supply, storage capacity, strategic reserves








L_2018302EN.01011501.xml










28.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 302/115







Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2018/860 of 7 February 2018 on the Aid Scheme SA.45852 — 2017/C (ex 2017/N) which Germany is planning to implement for Capacity Reserve

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 153 of 15 June 2018
)


On page 156, footnote 2:
for:


                  ‘The European Commission points to the fact that a proposal for a new Regulation on the internal market on electricity (COM(2016)861 final of 30 November 2016) is currently being negotiated; however, the present measure remains uninfluenced by the future rules on the design of the electricity market.’,

read:


                  ‘The Commission underlines that the present decision needs and will need to be interpreted in the light of relevant secondary legislation, including legislation that has not been adopted yet at the time of this decision. In this regard, the Commission would like to point to the proposal for a Regulation on the internal market for electricity (recast), COM (2016) 861, and in particular to the principles (such as the requirements regarding CO2 emission limits) which capacity mechanisms need to incorporate and apply, even if they are already in force and have been deemed as compliant with Union state aid rules, in line with the final text of the Regulation when it becomes effective.’.
Case T-708/18: Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2019044EN.01007602.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/76






Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)
(Case T-708/18)
(2019/C 44/102)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

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 figurative mark FLIS Happy Moreno choco — Application for registration No 15 030 786

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Case R 2113/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;
or










—


alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015030786 ‘Flis Happy Moreno choco’ for all the goods and services in classes 30 and 35, and the trademark shall be registered;










—


award the costs in the applicant’s favour.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.
Annual Report 2017
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: European Ombudsman
Subjects: European Ombudsman, activity report, exchange of information








C_2018429EN.01000301.xml










28.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/3






Annual Report 2017
(2018/C 429/03)
On 17 May 2018, the European Ombudsman presented her Annual Report for the year 2017 to the President of the European Parliament.
The Annual Report is available on the European Ombudsman’s website in all 24 official languages at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/activities/annualreports.faces
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2016/2134 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (OJ L 338, 13.12.2016)
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: cruel and degrading treatment, death penalty, export licence, human rights, import licence, international trade, third country, torture, trade regulations








LI2018302EN.01000301.xml










28.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 302/3







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2016/2134 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 338 of 13 December 2016
)


On page 6, Article 1, point (2)(b), new point (i) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005:
for:


                  ‘…






5.


the supplier of technical assistance or the broker, in the case of supplies of technical assistance referred to in Article 7a or brokering services referred to in Article 7d;’.’,





read:


                  ‘…






5.


the supplier of technical assistance or the broker, in the case of supplies of technical assistance referred to in Article 7a or brokering services referred to in Article 7e;’.’.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 28 November 2018 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40461 DE/DK Interconnector — Rapporteur: Greece
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Denmark, EU competition policy, Germany, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electrical energy, energy grid, energy transport, sanction (EU)








C_2019058EN.01000501.xml










14.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/5






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 28 November 2018 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40461 DE/DK Interconnector
Rapporteur: Greece
(2019/C 58/07)

(1)   

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 14 November 2018 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.



(2)   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning TenneT TSO GmbH (TenneT) can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



(3)   

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by TenneT are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on TenneT.



(4)   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by TenneT, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against TenneT, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



(5)   

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion.



(6)   

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-739/18 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2018 by Chefaro Ireland DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2018 in Case T-905/16: Chefaro Ireland DAC v EUIPO
Date: 2018-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019280EN.01001402.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/14






Appeal brought on 28 November 2018 by Chefaro Ireland DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2018 in Case T-905/16: Chefaro Ireland DAC v EUIPO
(Case C-739/18 P)
(2019/C 280/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (represented by: P. Maeyaert, J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 2 May 2019 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.