do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, chromium, copper, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, metal coating, oxide








C_2018460EN.01003101.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/31






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 460/16)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised uses


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2018) 8564


14 December 2018


Chromium trioxide
EC No 215-607-8;
CAS No 1333-82-0


Circuit Foil Luxembourg SARL, Zone industrielle C. SALZBAACH, 9559 WILTZ, Luxembourg


REACH/18/17/0


Industrial use for the treatment of copper foil used in the production of printed circuit board.


21 September 2024


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant before the sunset date.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9174 — Aunde/Brose/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor car, textile industry, vehicle parts








C_2018460EN.01004301.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/43






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9174 — Aunde/Brose/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 460/25)

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:






—


AUNDE Group SE (‘Aunde’, Germany), belonging to the group Aunde,










—


Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. KG, Coburg (‘Brose’, Germany), belonging to the group Brose,










—


a newly created joint venture (‘the JV’, Germany).




Aunde and Brose acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Aunde: develops and produces upholstery and technical textiles, as well as seat covers for car manufacturers under the brands Aunde, Isringhausen and Fehrer,
—   for Brose: produces seat structures for passenger cars,
—   for the JV: will be active in the assembly and supply of complete car seats for passenger cars.


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.9174 — Aunde/Brose/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.
Case C-814/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 21 December 2018 — Ursa Major Services B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, common fisheries policy, financial aid, fishery management, minister, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid








C_2019122EN.01000901.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 21 December 2018 — Ursa Major Services B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
(Case C-814/18)
(2019/C 122/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ursa Major Services B.V.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 (1) applicable to the relationship between the provider of a subsidy, in the present case the Minister, and the beneficiary (the recipient of the subsidy)?










2.


If the first question is answered to the effect that Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 does apply to the relationship between the provider of the subsidy and the beneficiary: can expenditure that has been paid by a third party (whether or not by set-off) be regarded as expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006?










3.


If the second question is answered to the effect that expenditure paid by a third party (whether or not by set-off) cannot be regarded as expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006:






(a)


does an executive practice whereby the provider of the subsidy has consistently considered contributions from third parties to be expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 mean that the beneficiary could not have been expected to detect such an incorrect interpretation of Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 by the provider of the subsidy, with the result that the beneficiary is entitled to the subsidy as granted to him, and










(b)


should the contributions from third parties then be included in the expenditure actually paid by the beneficiary as referred to in Article 55(1) of Regulation 1198/2006 (in which case the subsidy is set higher) or










(c)


should recovery of the wrongly granted subsidy then be waived on the basis of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and/or the principle of legal certainty?










(d)


does it make any difference in that regard if the provider of the subsidy, as in the present case, has granted an advance on the subsidy?










(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2006 L 223, p. 1).
Case C-816/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by OY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2018 in Case T-605/16: OY v Commission
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract staff, pay scale, professional experience, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019255EN.01001601.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/16






Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by OY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2018 in Case T-605/16: OY v Commission
(Case C-816/18 P)
(2019/C 255/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: OY (represented by: S. Rodrigues and N. Flandin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 12 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/2078 of 21 December 2018 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, territorial dispute




L_2018331EN.01022401.xml










28.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 331/224








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2018/2078
of 21 December 2018
         
amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 July 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1).












(2)


On 19 March 2015, the European Council agreed that the necessary measures would be taken to clearly link the duration of the restrictive measures to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements, bearing in mind that the complete implementation was foreseen for 31 December 2015.












(3)


On 5 July 2018, the Council renewed Decision 2014/512/CFSP until 31 January 2019 in order to enable it to further assess the implementation of the Minsk agreements (2).












(4)


Having assessed the implementation of the Minsk agreements, Decision 2014/512/CFSP should be renewed for a further six months in order to enable the Council to further assess their implementation.












(5)


Decision 2014/512/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP is replaced by the following:


‘1.   This Decision shall apply until 31 July 2019.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 21 December 2018.


For the Council


The President

J. BOGNER-STRAUSS
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/964 of 5 July 2018 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 172, 9.7.2018, p. 3).
Case T-750/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Briois v Parliament
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, criminal proceedings, equal treatment, parliamentary immunity








C_2019082EN.01005801.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/58






Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Briois v Parliament
(Case T-750/18)
(2019/C 82/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Steeve Briois (Hénin-Beaumont, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Parliament of 24 October 2018 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois (2018/2075 IMM) to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs A8-0349/2018;










—


order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the Protocol’), in so far as the wording used by Mr Briois, which has given rise to criminal proceedings in his Member State of origin, constitutes the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties within the meaning of that provision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol, in so far as the Parliament misconstrued both the letter and the spirit of that provision by adopting the decision to waive the immunity of Mr Briois and thus vitiated that decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and of good administration.
In the first place, the applicant claims that the Parliament has infringed the principle of equal treatment in his regard by treating him differently from other Members of Parliament in comparable situations and that the Parliament has therefore also infringed the principle of good administration under which the competent institution is required to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case.
In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence supporting the conclusion that there is a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him.
Case T-746/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Bronckers v Commission
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Mexico, access to EU information, product designation, spirits, trade agreement (EU)








C_2019072EN.01003601.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/36






Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Bronckers v Commission
(Case T-746/18)
(2019/C 72/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marco Bronckers (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the (implied) decision of the Commission of 17 October 2018 rejecting, under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, (1) the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents relating to the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks; (2)











—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 8 (3) of Regulation 1049/2001 by failing to decide within the prescribed time limit.


(1)  Regulation (EC) 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).

(2)  OJ 1997 L 152, p. 15.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9085 — Dr August Oetker/Coop-Gruppe/F&amp;B — Food and Beverage Services) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, distributor, economic concentration, merger control, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2019031EN.01000101.xml










25.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9085 — Dr August Oetker/Coop-Gruppe/F&B — Food and Beverage Services)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 31/01)
On 21 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 German language 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 32018M9085. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-748/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Glimarpol v EUIPO — Metar (Pneumatic power tools)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, drilling equipment, pneumatic machinery








C_2019072EN.01003701.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/37






Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Glimarpol v EUIPO — Metar (Pneumatic power tools)
(Case T-748/18)
(2019/C 72/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Glimarpol sp. z o.o. (Bytom, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metar sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design 2 125 435-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2018 in Case R 1615/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


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










—


alter the contested decision by stating that there are no grounds for declaring Registered Community design No 002125435-001 as invalid;










—


award the costs in the applicant’s favour.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, chromium, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, metal coating, oxide








C_2018460EN.01003001.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/30






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 460/15)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2018) 8563


14 December 2018


Chromium trioxide
EC No 215-607-8
CAS No 1333-82-0


FN Herstal SA, Voie de Liège 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium;


REACH/18/19/0


Industrial use of chromium trioxide in the hard chromium coating of military small- and medium-calibre firearms barrel bores and auxiliary parts subject to thermal, mechanical and chemical stresses, in order to provide hardness, heat resistance and thermal barrier properties, as well as corrosion resistance, adhesion and low friction properties.


21 September 2029


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment arising from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies for the applicant before the sunset date.




Manroy Engineering Ltd, Phoenix House Slade Green House, DA8 2HY, Erith, Kent, United Kingdom;


REACH/18/19/1




FN Herstal SA, Voie de Liège 33, 4040 Herstal, Belgium;


REACH/18/19/2


Industrial use of chromium trioxide in the hard chromium coating of civilian firearms barrel bores and auxiliary parts subject to thermal, mechanical and chemical stresses, in order to provide low friction coefficient as well as heat, corrosion and wear resistance properties.


21 September 2024




Browning Viana Fabrica de Armas e Artigos de Desporto SA, Lugar de Morenos — Neiva — Apartado 2, 4901 906, Vila Nova de Anha, Portugal.


REACH/18/19/3






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018460EN.01002601.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/26






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 December 2018
(2018/C 460/11)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1451 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,94 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4672 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90335 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2530 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1331 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8970 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,760 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,83 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2876 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6573 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0319 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6050 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5424 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9628 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6884 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5678 




KRW


South Korean won


1 284,69 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2600 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8864 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4265 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 544,40 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7879 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,816 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,4949 




THB


Thai baht


37,410 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4076 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,7759 




INR


Indian rupee


79,9490 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.