do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-713/18: Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, preservative, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01007801.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/78






Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)
(Case T-713/18)
(2019/C 44/104)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Esim Chemicals GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: I. Rungg and I. Innerhofer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (Rome, Italy)

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 ESIM Chemicals — Application for registration No 14 465 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 1267/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


resume the appeal proceedings and follow the arguments brought forward in the appeal R 1267/2018-5;










—



in eventu, permit the application to reopen the proceedings of 29 October 2018, for a substantive decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs of the procedure.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-751/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 3 December 2018 — Totalmédia — Marketing Directo e Publicidade S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, interest, loan, merger, tax law, tax relief








C_2019082EN.01001001.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 3 December 2018 — Totalmédia — Marketing Directo e Publicidade S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-751/18)
(2019/C 82/09)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Totalmédia — Marketing Directo e Publicidade S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred







1.


If after the ‘reverse merger’ in question, the interest and other financial charges on the loans taken out with third parties or associates (which but for the merger would be deductible by the company now being acquired), in order to purchase the shares of the subsidiary which is now the acquiring company, and transferred as a result of the merger, are interpreted as ceasing to be deductible for tax purposes from the profits of the acquiring company, will Article 23(1)(c) of the Corporation Tax Code, in the version in force in 2013, be compatible with EU law, in particular in the sense that that non-deductibility of the financial charges may constitute an impediment or restriction to the merger operations encompassed by Council Directive 2009/133/EC, (1) infringing the principles and objectives of that directive, as well as Article 4 thereof?










2.


If the first question is answered to the effect that that non-deduction of financial charges for tax purposes is compatible with the Directive, will that answer remain unchanged by the fact that such a correction was not made on the basis of the anti-abuse provision of the Directive (Article 15) or national law reproducing it (Article 73(10) of the Corporation Tax Code), but another provision of national law (Article 23 of the Corporation Tax Code)?






(1)  Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34).
Case C-772/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 December 2018 — Yhtiö A v B
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, free movement of goods, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019072EN.01000801.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 December 2018 — Yhtiö A v B
(Case C-772/18)
(2019/C 72/10)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Yhtiö A

Respondent: B

Questions referred







1.


Is the amount of the advantage received from an alleged infringement of a trade mark by a private individual relevant when assessing whether his conduct is the use of a trade mark in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Trade Marks Directive (1) or a private matter? If a private individual uses a trade mark, does use in the course of trade require the satisfaction of criteria other than the requirement of economic advantage obtained from the transaction in question concerning the trade mark?










2.


If the economic advantage must have a certain degree of substantiality, and a person, on the basis of the triviality of the economic advantage received by him and the non-fulfilment of other possible criteria of use in the course of trade, may not be regarded as having used a trade mark in the course of his own trade, is the condition of use in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Trade Marks Directive satisfied if a private individual uses a trade mark on behalf of another person as part of that other person’s trade, where he is not, however, an employee in the service of that other person?










3.


Does a person keeping goods use a trade mark in relation to goods within the meaning of Article 5(1) and (3)(b) of the Trade Marks Directive if the goods marked with the trade mark, sent to a Member State and released into free circulation there, are received on behalf of a reselling company and stored by a person, into whose possession the goods have passed, who does not carry on the importation and storage of goods and who does not have a licence to operate a customs warehouse or tax warehouse?










4.


May a person be regarded as importing goods marked with a trade mark within the meaning of Article 5(3)(c) of the Trade Marks Directive if the goods were not imported at the person’s request, but the person provided his address to a reseller and received on behalf of the reseller the goods released into free circulation in the Member State, kept them in his possession for some weeks, and released them for transmission to a third country outside the European Union for the purpose of resale there?






(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/719 of 14 May 2018 amending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces (OJ L 120, 16.5.2018)
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, EU control, Netherlands, Spain, customs, customs inspection, import (EU), veterinary inspection








L_2018307EN.01002701.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 307/27







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/719 of 14 May 2018 amending Decision 2009/821/EC as regards the lists of border inspection posts and veterinary units in Traces

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 120 of 16 May 2018
)


On page 17, in letter (a) of point (1) of the Annex:
for:


                  ‘in the part concerning Denmark, the entry for the airport at Aalborg is replaced by the following’,

read:


                  ‘in the part concerning Denmark, the following entry for the airport at Aalborg is inserted after the second entry’.

On page 17, in letter (b) of point (2) of the Annex:
for:


                  ‘in the part concerning Austria, the entry for the central unit “AT000000 BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR GESUNDHEIT” is replaced by the following “AT000000 BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR ARBEIT, SOZIALES, GESUNDHEIT UND KONSUMENTENSCHUTZ”.’,

read:


                  ‘in the part concerning Austria, the entry for the central unit “AT00000 BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR GESUNDHEIT” is replaced by the following “AT00000 BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR ARBEIT, SOZIALES, GESUNDHEIT UND KONSUMENTENSCHUTZ”.’.
Case T-712/18: Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Umweltinstitut München v Commission
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Canada, access to EU information, economic agreement, joint committee (EU), trade agreement, trade agreement (EU)








C_2019044EN.01007701.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/77






Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Umweltinstitut München v Commission
(Case T-712/18)
(2019/C 44/103)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Umweltinstitut München — Verein zur Erforschung und Verminderung der Umweltbelastung eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. John, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 (C(2018) 6539 final).





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 definitively refusing the applicant access to the documents pertaining to the first meeting of the CETA Joint Committee, which took place on 26 and 27 March 2018.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:
Infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) since the defendant was not entitled, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, to refuse (partial) access to the requested documents.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine apply
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








C_2018435EN.01000301.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/3






Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine apply
(2018/C 435/03)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director General of RELEX (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is RELEX.1.C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 208/2014.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9213 — OYAK/Cimpor Portugal) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2018435EN.01003801.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/38






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9213 — OYAK/Cimpor Portugal)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 435/08)

1.   
On 26 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:






—


Ordu Yardimlaşma Kurumu (‘OYAK’),










—


Cimpor Portugal, sgps, s.a. (‘Cimpor Portugal’)




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


OYAK is a pension fund in Turkey and its subsidiaries are active in a wide range of industries, namely mining, metallurgy, cement, concrete, paper, energy, chemicals, financial services, automotive and logistics,










—


Cimpor Portugal is a cement producer in Portugal and also has interests in Cape Verde. It is active in the production and commercialisation of cement, concrete, aggregates and mortars.






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.9213 — OYAK/Cimpor Portugal
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9025 — Pizza Hut/Telepizza) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, franchising, merger control








C_2018447EN.01000202.xml










12.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9025 — Pizza Hut/Telepizza)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 447/04)
On 3 December 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 32018M9025. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-750/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2018 — A, B v C
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, indemnification, unfair terms of contract








C_2019093EN.01002901.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2018 — A, B v C
(Case C-750/18)
(2019/C 93/38)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A, B

Defendant: C

Question referred

How should Directive 93/13, (1) and, more specifically, the principle of cumulative effect contained in it, be interpreted when assessing whether the sum which a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations is required to pay in compensation (hereinafter: the penalty clause) is disproportionately high within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, in a case in which penalty clauses are associated with a variety of shortcomings of different types which, by their very nature, do not have to occur jointly, and indeed do not do so in the present case?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-756/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Aulnay-Sous-Bois (France) lodged on 3 December 2018 — LC, MD v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation








C_2019054EN.01001201.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Aulnay-Sous-Bois (France) lodged on 3 December 2018 — LC, MD v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
(Case C-756/18)
(2019/C 54/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Aulnay-Sous-Bois

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: LC, MD

Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Question referred

Is Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) (‘Regulation No 261/2004’), to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the provisions of the regulation, passengers must prove that they presented themselves for check-in?
If so, does Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 preclude a rule of simple presumption that the requirement that a passenger present himself for check-in may be regarded as satisfied if the passenger has a reservation that has been accepted and registered by the operating air carrier within the meaning of Article 2(g)?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of a person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine
Date: 2018-12-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2018435EN.01000201.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/2






Notice for the attention of a person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine
(2018/C 435/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Viktor Ivanovych Ratushniak who appears in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.
The Council is considering maintaining the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned person. The above-mentioned person is hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding his designation, before 6 December 2018, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




In this regard, the attention of the person concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list of designated persons in Decision 2014/119/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 208/2014.


(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.