do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-749/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, computer equipment, maintenance, motor vehicle, motor vehicle insurance, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01004502.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/45






Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)
(Case T-749/18)
(2019/C 65/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY — Application for registration No 15 814 536

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 in Case R 2701/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8747 — Bolloré/APMM/CIT) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: container, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, merger control








C_2019011EN.01000401.xml










11.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8747 — Bolloré/APMM/CIT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 11/02)
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 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 32018M8747. 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.9225 — MML Capital Partners/Macquarie Group/Peggy Holdco) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, consultancy, economic concentration, financing, investment, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2019124EN.01000202.xml










3.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9225 — MML Capital Partners/Macquarie Group/Peggy Holdco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 124/04)
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 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 32018M9225. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-831/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-29/17, RQ v Commission
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, Member of the European Parliament, parliamentary immunity, rights of the defence








C_2019065EN.01003001.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/30






Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-29/17, RQ v Commission
(Case C-831/18 P)
(2019/C 65/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: RQ

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 October 2018 in Case T-29/17, in so far as it annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive RQ’s immunity from legal proceedings;










—


dismiss the application for annulment brought by the respondent to the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and give a final ruling on the questions which form the subject-matter of the present appeal or, if the state of the proceedings does not permit judgment to be given by the Court, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;










—


order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs incurred by the Commission both at first instance and in the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on three grounds of appeal:






1.


First, unlike the General Court, the Commission considers that the decision to waive immunity does not constitute an act adversely affecting the applicant and cannot therefore be the subject of an action for annulment. The judgment under appeal is therefore vitiated by an error in law in so far as it holds the application admissible.










2.


Secondly, the Commission considers that the judgment under appeal incorrectly interprets the right to be heard, enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it is based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 4(3) TEU (principle of cooperation in good faith) and the general principle of mutual confidence and trust between EU bodies and the authorities of the Member States.










3.


Thirdly, the Commission considers that the General Court erred in law in the characterisation of the Commission’s conduct in the present case by considering that the Commission did not adequately respect the applicant’s right to be heard.
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 process, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_2018460EN.01002801.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/28






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 460/13)

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) 8490


14 December 2018


1,2-dichloroethane
EC No 203-458-1
CAS No 107-06-2


emp Biotech GmbH, Robert-Roessle-Str. 10, 13125, Berlin, Germany


REACH/18/20/0


Use of 1,2-dichloroethane as a solvent in manufacture of polymeric particles for pharmaceutical and research purification processes


22 November 2029


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies 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
EUROPHYT 2017 : EU notification system for plant health interceptions.
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
Subjects: agricultural production, information system, plant health control, quality control of agricultural products, statistics

European
Commission

EUROPHYT 2017

EU Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions

7 719
notifications

-0.7% from 2016

1 477
Harmful 
organisms
18.6%

Found in...

2 597
Non-compliant
certificates 

11.3%24.6%

3 341
Non-compliant Wood 
Packaging Material

363
Banned products

11.4%

91%

FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES 

1 023

WOOD PACKAGING 
MATERIAL
206

CUT 
FLOWERS
151

PLANTS
58

Main 
pests...

FRUIT
FLIES

323

WHITE 
FLIES

273

LONGHORN 
BEETLE

VIRUSES, 
BACTERIA 
AND FUNGI

27

75

THRIPS

92

FALSE
 CODLING 
MOTH

46

Health and
Food Safety

2017 Specific Issues

FALL ARMYWORM
PEPPERS, EGGPLANT

FRUIT FLIES
MANGOES

+69%
from 2016

22 notifications

-7.8%
from 2016

178 notifications

FALSE CODLING MOTH
PEPPERS, CITRUS

-3.4%
from 2016

141 notifications

WOOD PACKAGING MATERIAL

NON ISPM 15 COMPLIANT 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: 1 055

PRESENCE OF HARMFUL ORGANISMS
CHINA: 87

DECREASED INTERCEPTIONS 
WITH HARMFUL ORGANISMS 
(FRUIT AND VEGETABLES)

INCREASED INTERCEPTIONS 
WITH HARMFUL ORGANISMS 
(FRUIT AND VEGETABLES)

LAOS
VIETNAM
UGANDA

NIGERIA
CÔTE D’IVOIRE
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Source Europhyt data

Annual report

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt/annual_reports_en

Alert list

 https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/non_eu_trade/alert_list_en

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-18832-2 

ISSN:2600-0997  

doi:10.2875/930918 

EW-BR-17-001-EN-N
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, France, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2018460EN.01003902.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/39






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2018/C 460/22)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


26.11.2018




Duration


26.11.2018-31.12.2018




Member State


France




Stock or Group of stocks


ALB/AN05N




Species


Northern albacore (Thunnus alalunga)




Zone


Atlantic Ocean, north of 5° N




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


47/TQ120






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9214 — MUFG HD/Akamai/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, electronic money, financial services, holding company, merger control








C_2018460EN.01004201.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/42






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9214 — MUFG HD/Akamai/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 460/24)

1.   
On 14 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:






—


Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (‘MUFG HD’, Japan),










—


Akamai Technologies, Inc. (‘Akamai’, US).




MUFG HD and Akamai acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (the ‘JV’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and contribution of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for MUFG HD: a holding company for entities engaged in a wide range of financial businesses,
—   for Akamai: the provision of cloud services for delivering, optimising and securing content and business applications over the internet,
—   for the JV: the provision of a blockchain-based online payment network in Japan.


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.9214 — MUFG HD/Akamai/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.
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, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_2018460EN.01002701.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/27






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 460/12)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2018) 8469


14 December 2018


Bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether (diglyme)
EC No: 203-924-4
CAS No. 111-96-6


Maflon SpA, Via Don Ravizza, 24060 Castelli Caleppio, Bergamo, Italy.


REACH/18/14/0


Use as a carrier solvent in the formulation and subsequent application of sodium naphthalide etchant for fluoropolymer surface modification whilst preserving article structural integrity


22 August 2029


Risk is adequately controlled in accordance with Article 60(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.
There are no suitable alternatives 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
Case T-758/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, company in difficulties, fund (EU), ownership, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2019082EN.01005901.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/59






Action brought on 21 December 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB
(Case T-758/18)
(2019/C 82/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the SRB of 17 October 2018 with respect to ABLV Bank as regards the SRB’s refusal to recalculate and to repay that bank’s ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to give sufficient weight to the pro rata temporis nature of Fund contributions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the SRB’s own express recognition that Fund contributions are refundable on a pro rata temporis basis.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the express recognition in Article 12(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (1) that only partial payments are owed if the conditions are met only during part of the relevant year.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB erroneously relied on Article 70(4) of Regulation 806/2014. (2)











5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB relied on an erroneous interpretation of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/63.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the relevance of its prior actions.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015, L 11, p. 44).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, France, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2018460EN.01003801.xml










21.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 460/38






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2018/C 460/19)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


26.11.2018




Duration


26.11.2018-31.12.2018




Member State


France




Stock or Group of stocks


HER/5B6ANB




Species


Herring (Clupea harengus)




Zone


Union and international waters of 5b, 6b and 6aN




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


50/TQ120






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-819/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2019280EN.01001501.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/15






Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-819/18 P)
(2019/C 280/19)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Next design+produktion GmbH (represented by: M. Hirsch, Rechtsanwalt, M. Metzner, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG
By order of 11 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-685/18: Order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND
Date: 2018-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Lithuania, executive power, independence of the judiciary, judicial power, public prosecutor's department








C_2019103EN.01002104.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/21






Order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND
(Case C-685/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/26)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.