do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-805/18 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2018 by Saga Furs Oyj against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2018 in Case T-313/18: Saga Furs v EUIPO — Support Design
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019255EN.01001502.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/15






Appeal brought on 18 December 2018 by Saga Furs Oyj against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2018 in Case T-313/18: Saga Furs v EUIPO — Support Design
(Case C-805/18 P)
(2019/C 255/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Saga Furs Oyj (represented by: J. Kaulo, luvan saanut oikeudenkäyntiavustaja)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Support Design AB
By order of 12 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9152 — BC Partners/United Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, mass media, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications industry








C_2019049EN.01000101.xml










7.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9152 — BC Partners/United Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 49/01)
On 18 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 32018M9152. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-741/18: Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, banking supervision, financial supervision, financial transparency, law of banking, shareholding








C_2019103EN.01004601.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/46






Action brought on 18 December 2018 — ZZ v ECB
(Case T-741/18)
(2019/C 103/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, D. Piccinin, Barrister, E. Poulton, L. Carlisle, and R. Molesworth, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decision of 10 October 2018 regarding the proposed acquisition by the applicant of a qualifying holding in Bank A (ECB-SSM-2018-LV-2);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to show that the applicant lacked transparency in his dealings with the competent authorities.






—


The applicant contends that the evidence relied on by the ECB in the contested decision does not establish and provides no proper basis for the ECB’s finding that the applicant was not transparent such that his integrity could be called into question.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicant’s innocent dealings with a third party cast doubt on the applicant’s integrity.






—


The applicant contends that the ECB erred in law in finding that the applicant’s dealings with a third party cast doubt on his integrity in circumstances where the ECB accepts that the applicant had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of that third party at the time and in circumstances where the applicant was an innocent victim of that wrongdoing.
Case T-740/18: Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v Commission
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, market approval, plant health control, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, seed








C_2019072EN.01003501.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/35






Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v Commission
(Case T-740/18)
(2019/C 72/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Taminco BVBA (Gent, Belgium) and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1500 of 9 October 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance Thiram, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing Thiram, (1) and remand the assessment of the active substance in question to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the defendant, as needed;










—


order the prolongation of the expiry of the approval of the active substance in question to allow its reassessment;










—


in the alternative, partially annul the contested regulation to the extent that it prohibits the renewal of the active substance in question with regard to seed treatment; and










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is procedurally flawed since the defendant failed to take into account the withdrawal of the application requested by the applicants to renew the approval of Thiram for use as a foliar spray and maintain only the seed treatment use.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted further to a manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in violation of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. (2)











4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires by making a proposal regarding the classification of the active substance in question.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation results from a procedure during which the applicants’ rights of defence have not been respected.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle and of the fundamental principles of European Union law of proportionality and equal treatment.






(1)  OJ 2018, L 254, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9149 — Apollo Management/Aspen Insurance Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control








C_2019124EN.01000201.xml










3.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9149 — Apollo Management/Aspen Insurance Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 124/03)
On 18 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 32018M9149. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt apply
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Egypt, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2018456EN.01002501.xml










18.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 456/25






Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt apply
(2018/C 456/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana and Mr Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Egypt.
The Council is considering maintaining the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons. The above-mentioned persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding their designation, before 28 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 persons concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list of designated persons in Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 270/2011.


(1)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63.

(2)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9222 — Ivanhoé/Oxford/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, property market








C_2019001EN.01000202.xml










3.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 1/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9222 — Ivanhoé/Oxford/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 1/04)
On 18 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 32018M9222. 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.8988 — Energizer/Spectrum Brands) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 23/01
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, merger control, sale








C_2020023EN.01000101.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8988 — Energizer/Spectrum Brands)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 23/01)
On 18 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) 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 32018M8988. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-795/18 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2018 by FCA US LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-109/17: FCA US v EUIPO — Busbridge
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2019255EN.01001501.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/15






Appeal brought on 18 December 2018 by FCA US LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-109/17: FCA US v EUIPO — Busbridge
(Case C-795/18 P)
(2019/C 255/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: FCA US LLC (represented by: C. Morcom QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 20 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2018/2063 of 18 December 2018 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/2/2018)
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: EU police mission, Mali, Sahel, peacekeeping








L_2018329EN.01002601.xml










27.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 329/26








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2018/2063
of 18 December 2018
         
extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/2/2018)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Decision 2014/219/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the EUCAP Sahel Mali mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 9 January 2018 the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/57 (2), appointing Mr Philippe RIO as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 January 2018 to 14 January 2019.












(3)


On 17 December 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/2008 (3), extending the mandate of EUCAP Sahel Mali until 28 February 2019.












(4)


The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Mr Philippe RIO as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 January 2019,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Mr Philippe RIO as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali is hereby extended from 15 January 2019.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
It shall expire on 28 February 2019.




Done at Brussels, 18 December 2018.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21.

(2)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2018/57 of 9 January 2018 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2018) (OJ L 10, 13.1.2018, p. 14).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/2008 of 17 December 2018 amending and extending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 322, 18.12.2018, p. 24).
Special Report No 34/2018 — Office accommodation of EU institutions — Some good management practices but also various weaknesses
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU budget, EU institution, administrative expenditure (EU), budgetary control, building, financial management, operational expenditure (EU)








C_2018456EN.01002901.xml










18.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 456/29






Special Report No 34/2018
Office accommodation of EU institutions — Some good management practices but also various weaknesses
(2018/C 456/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 34/2018 ‘Office accommodation of EU institutions – Some good management practices but also various weaknesses’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, packaging product, plastics industry








C_2018456EN.01002301.xml










18.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 456/23






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 456/02)
(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)
On 15 November 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Amcor and Bemis. On 12 December 2018, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018456EN.01002601.xml










18.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 456/26






Euro exchange rates (1)

17 December 2018
(2018/C 456/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1341 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,44 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4659 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89890 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2725 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1254 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7838 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,801 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,32 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2835 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6550 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0958 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5801 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5189 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8624 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6668 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5588 




KRW


South Korean won


1 282,21 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2812 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8222 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4028 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 529,51 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7292 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,123 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,5249 




THB


Thai baht


37,198 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4355 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8295 




INR


Indian rupee


81,2130 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-743/18: Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
Date: 2018-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01004401.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/44






Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
(Case T-743/18)
(2019/C 65/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: I.J. Tobacco Industry FZE (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates)

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 figurative mark in black and white I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY — Application for registration No 16 003 551

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 979/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


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