do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-806/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 20 December 2018 — JZ
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, illegal migration, offence, removal, return migration








C_2019122EN.01000801.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 20 December 2018 — JZ
(Case C-806/18)
(2019/C 122/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant: JZ

Question referred

Is the criminalisation under national law which criminalises the stay of a third-country national in the territory of the Netherlands after an entry ban has been imposed on him pursuant to Article 66a(7) of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 compatible with EU law, in particular with the finding of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgment of 26 July 2017, Ouhrami v Netherlands (C-225/16, EU:C:2017:590, paragraph 49) according to which the entry ban provided for in Article 11 of the Return Directive (1) produces its ‘effects’ only from the point in time the foreign national has returned to his country of origin or to another third country, when national law also holds that that foreign national has no lawful residence and moreover it is established that the steps of the return procedure set out in the Return Directive have been followed but the actual return has not taken place?


(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, packaging








C_2018459EN.01004801.xml










20.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/48






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 459/17)

1.   
On 12 December 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:






—


Amcor Limited (‘Amcor’, Australia),










—


Bemis Company Inc. (‘Bemis’, United States of America).




Amcor enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with Bemis.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.
The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 15 November 2018, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 12 December 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Amcor: supply of a broad range packaging solutions; rigid and flexible packaging products for the food, beverage, medical, pharmaceutical, personal care and other consumer goods sectors globally,
—   for Bemis: supply of flexible and rigid plastic packaging for the food, consumer products, medical and other sectors worldwide.


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.



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.9094 — Amcor/Bemis
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 229-64301




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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9127 — Carlyle/Sedgwick) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control, risk management








C_2019036EN.01000101.xml










29.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/1







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9127 — Carlyle/Sedgwick)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 36/01)

On 20 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 32018M9127. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-747/18: Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, decorative item, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019072EN.01003602.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/36






Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)
(Case T-747/18)
(2019/C 72/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a flower) — Application for registration No 16 544 025

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2018 in Case R 2518/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-804/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 December 2018 — IX v WABE e. V.
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Muslim, equal treatment, freedom of religious beliefs, religious discrimination, religious symbol, staff regulations








C_2019182EN.01000401.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 20 December 2018 — IX v WABE e. V.
(Case C-804/18)
(2019/C 182/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IX

Defendant: WABE e. V.

Questions referred







1.


Does a unilateral instruction from the employer prohibiting the wearing of any visible sign of political, ideological or religious beliefs constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of religion, within the meaning of Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), against employees who, due to religious covering requirements, follow certain clothing rules?










2.


Does a unilateral instruction from the employer prohibiting the wearing of any visible sign of political, ideological or religious beliefs constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion and/or gender, within the meaning of Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC, against a female employee who, due to her Muslim faith, wears a headscarf?
In particular:






(a)


Can discrimination on the grounds of religion and/or gender be justified under Directive 2000/78/EC with the employer’s subjective wish to pursue a policy of political, ideological and religious neutrality even where the employer thereby seeks to meet the subjective wishes of his customers?










(b)


Do Directive 2000/78/EC and/or the fundamental right of freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in view of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC preclude a national regulation according to which, in order to protect the fundamental right of freedom of religion, a ban on religious clothing may be justified not simply on the basis of an abstract capacity to endanger the neutrality of the employer, but only on the basis of a sufficiently specific risk, in particular of a specifically threatened economic disadvantage for the employer or an affected third party?










(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
2019 update of the allowances applicable to experts on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: allowances and expenses, secretariat of an Institution, self-employed person, staff regulations








C_2018459EN.01000401.xml










20.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/4






2019 update of the allowances applicable to experts on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union
(2018/C 459/06)
In accordance with Article 19(6) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1027 of 23 June 2015 concerning the rules applicable to experts on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council and repealing Decision 2007/829/EC (1):






1.


From 1 January 2019, the daily allowance as referred to in Article 19 is set at EUR 35,13 and EUR 140,49.










2.


From 1 January 2019, the scale used to calculate reimbursements due on the basis of the distance between the place of recruitment and the place of secondment (in km) is as follows:






Distance between the place of recruitment and the place of secondment (in km)


Amount (in EUR)




0-150


0,00 




> 150


90,31 




> 300


160,54 




> 500


260,91 




> 800


421,46 




> 1 300 


662,30 




> 2 000 


792,77 










(1)  OJ L 163, 30.6.2015, p. 40.
Case C-803/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 20 December 2018 — AAS BALTA v UAB GRIFS AG
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance law, insured risk, jurisdiction, residence








C_2019082EN.01001502.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 20 December 2018 — AAS BALTA v UAB GRIFS AG
(Case C-803/18)
(2019/C 82/16)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: AAS BALTA

Other party to the proceedings in cassation: UAB GRIFS AG

Question referred

Must Articles 15(5) and 16(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be construed as meaning that, in the case of large-risk insurance, an agreement conferring jurisdiction included in the insurance contract concluded between the policyholder and the insurer may be relied on against a person insured under that contract who has not expressly subscribed to that clause and who is habitually resident or established in a Member State other than that of the policyholder and the insurer?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Special Report No 33/2018 — Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU environmental policy, climate change, climate change policy, desertification, drought, environmental protection, soil protection








C_2018459EN.01003701.xml










20.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/37






Special Report No 33/2018
Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action
(2018/C 459/12)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 33/2018 ‘Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
Special Report No 35/2018 — Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, development aid, distribution of EU funding, distribution of aid, eligibility criteria, financial aid, humanitarian aid, non-governmental organisation, transparency in decision-making








C_2018459EN.01003702.xml










20.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/37






Special Report No 35/2018
Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed
(2018/C 459/13)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 35/2018 ‘Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018459EN.01000501.xml










20.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 459/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 December 2018
(2018/C 459/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1405 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,11 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4676 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90318 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3393 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1328 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9375 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,765 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,90 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2833 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6655 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0860 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5879 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5332 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9241 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6630 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5623 




KRW


South Korean won


1 284,20 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2602 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8683 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4190 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 471,67 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7661 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,535 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,0444 




THB


Thai baht


37,311 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4515 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,8738 




INR


Indian rupee


80,1160 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-760/18: Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, commodities exchange, crude oil, financial derivative, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01006801.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/68






Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)
(Case T-760/18)
(2019/C 93/88)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: R. Hoy, Solicitor, and J. Bowhill, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark NYMEX BRENT — Application for registration No 15 333 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 102/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-744/18: Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)
Date: 2018-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, electrical equipment, footwear industry, leather, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01004501.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/45






Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)
(Case T-744/18)
(2019/C 65/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Oakley (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a discontinuous ellipsis) — Application for registration No 13 088 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 692/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible, together with all the associated documents;










—


rule that the evidence offered may be submitted;










—


grant the application, annulling the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.