do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-7/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, tax relief








C_2019072EN.01004102.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/41






Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-7/19)
(2019/C 72/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision C(2018) 6268 final of 28 September 2018 on State aid SA.51981 (2018/FC);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State guarantees granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised by the Construction Decision and that they do not constitute state aid.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the aid in the form of a DKK 10 million capital injection (in excess of the DKK 500 million authorised by the Planning Decision) is compatible with the internal market.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised in the Construction Decision and that the ones granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg do not constitute aid, while those granted to Femern A/S are compatible with the internal market.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans granted in excess of the DKK 1 445 million budget, have been authorised in the Planning Decision and that they constitute State aid that is compatible with the internal market.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the tax advantages do not constitute State aid.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 296 TFEU.
Case T-2/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial solvency, right to justice








C_2019082EN.01006001.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/60






Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB
(Case T-2/19)
(2019/C 82/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, lawyer, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites, and D. Mackersie, Barristers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the SRB’s decision to the effect that ex-post definitive valuations of Banco Popular Español S.A. were not required pursuant to Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014; (1)











—


order the SRB to pay the applicants’ legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the SRB’s decision that ex-post definitive valuations of Banco Popular Español S.A. were not required pursuant to Article 20(11) of Regulation 806/2014 rests on an error of law in breach of Article 20(11) and/or Article 20(12) of that Regulation, which requires an ex-post definitive valuation in circumstances where a provisional valuation that did not meet the requirements of Article 20(1) and (4) to (9) of Regulation 806/2014 is relied on to take resolution measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed manifest errors of assessment in its application of Article 20(11) of Regulation 806/2014 in the contested decision, because, in adopting the contested decision, the SRB proceeded on the erroneous basis that no ex-post definitive valuations are required in this case.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, insofar as the contested decision implies a decision by the SRB not to increase the value of the EUR 1 consideration paid by Banco Santander, S.A., this amounts to an error of law and/or manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 20(11) and (12) of Regulation 806/2014.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached its obligation to provide reasons for the contested decision, contrary to Article 296 TFEU.






(1)  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).
Case T-10/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fish product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01006902.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/69






Action brought on 4 January 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)
(Case T-10/19)
(2019/C 93/90)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United States Seafoods LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative sign UNITED STATES SEAFOODS — Application for registration No 1 365 398

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2018 in Case R 817/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9173 — Astorg Asset Management/Montagu Private Equity/Nemera Capital) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bio-industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, plastics








C_2019020EN.01000202.xml










16.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 20/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9173 — Astorg Asset Management/Montagu Private Equity/Nemera Capital)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 20/04)
On 4 January 2019, 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 32019M9173. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-6/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, control of State aid, fossil fuel, property tax, tax relief








C_2019093EN.01006901.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/69






Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission
(Case T-6/19)
(2019/C 93/89)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the letter of the European Commission dated 25 October 2018 regarding case SA.44671 Ireland — Alleged illegal State aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced property tax rates;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, namely that the Commission failed to open the formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) notwithstanding doubts as to the existence of State aid, thereby depriving the applicants of their procedural rights. This plea comprises two branches:






1.


First branch: the Commission should have adopted a formal decision. The Commission has not conducted a proper examination of the complaint as required under its own rules and the contested act has been adopted in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 2015/1589.










2.


Second branch: the Commission should have had serious doubts as to the classification of the measure as aid and accordingly opened the formal investigation under Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589, in particular and inter alia as the Commission misunderstood the scope of the complaint, failed to adequately examine all the information provided by the complainant in the context of the complaint, did not properly examine the measure, and followed the wrong approach regarding the assessment of selectivity and did not examine the other requirements laid down in Article 107 TFEU.






(1)  Council Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, cast-iron, common customs tariff, piping








C_2019002EN.01000201.xml










4.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/2






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2019/C 2/02)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 296, in the explanatory note to subheading 7307 19 10 (Of malleable cast iron), the third paragraph under the heading is deleted.


On page 296, the following explanatory note is inserted:








‘7307 19 90




Other





This subheading includes fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron.’



(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9135 — The Blackstone Group/Luminor Bank) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control








C_2019002EN.01000501.xml










4.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9135 — The Blackstone Group/Luminor Bank)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 2/04)

1.   
On 18 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:






—


The Blackstone Group L.P. (‘Blackstone’, United States), and










—


Luminor Bank AS (‘Luminor Bank’, Estonia) which belongs to the Luminor Group AB (Sweden).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Blackstone: asset management and financial advisory services, and
—   for Luminor Bank: financial services, including retail and corporate banking, in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.


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.9135 — The Blackstone Group/Luminor Bank
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 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.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 January 2019 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2019002EN.01000101.xml










4.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 2/1






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 January 2019
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 January 2019
(2019/C 2/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1348 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,21 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4675 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90312 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2808 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1219 




ISK


Iceland króna


133,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9113 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,683 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,41 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2975 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6660 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2248 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6287 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5392 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8884 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7085 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5501 




KRW


South Korean won


1 279,17 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4149 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8019 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4325 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 352,47 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7020 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,679 




RUB


Russian rouble


78,2615 




THB


Thai baht


36,518 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2814 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,2384 




INR


Indian rupee


79,6080 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2018/231 of the European Central Bank of 26 January 2018 on statistical reporting requirements for pension funds (ECB/2018/2) (OJ L 45, 17.2.2018)
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: EU statistics, central bank, data collection, economic statistics, euro area, financial accounting, financial legislation, supplementary pension








L_2019002EN.01002701.xml










4.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 2/27







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2018/231 of the European Central Bank of 26 January 2018 on statistical reporting requirements for pension funds (ECB/2018/2)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 45 of 17 February 2018
)


On page 13, in the last sub-heading of Table 1c:
for:


                        ‘Data required to be provided on an annual (1) basis’,

read:


                        ‘Assets data required to be provided on a quarterly basis and liabilities data required to be provided on an annual (1) basis’.
Case C-7/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2019 — QG v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, strike, traveller








C_2019122EN.01001201.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2019 — QG v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-7/19)
(2019/C 122/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QG

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Question referred:

Does a regular strike under national law announced by a trade union and involving an operating air carrier’s own staff members constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-6/19 P: Appeal brought on 04 January 2019 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-447/16: Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2019148EN.01001201.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/12






Appeal brought on 04 January 2019 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-447/16: Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO
(Case C-6/19 P)
(2019/C 148/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pirelli Tyre SpA, The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested judgment;










—


order Pirelli Tyre SpA to pay the costs incurred by the Office.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Office raises a single plea in law that is the infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (1).






—


By requiring that in order to be caught by Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 a sign depicting part of a product must represent, quantitatively and qualitatively, a significant part of that product, the General Court misinterpreted the conditions of this ground for refusal;










—


The General Court incorrectly considered that a single groove represented in the contested sign is not capable of performing a technical function for the purposes of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 because in a tyre tread it appears in combination with other elements. First, Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 requires to examine the technical result achieved by the feature of a product represented in the sign at issue, rather than the technical result achieved by the entire product. Secondly, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 it is irrelevant if a single groove represented in the contested sign is combined with other elements of a tyre tread since it produces a technical result itself and contributes to the functioning of that tyre tread;










—


The General Court wrongly presumed that the registration of a single groove represented in the contested sign could not prevent Pirelli’s competitors from making and marketing tyres which incorporate identical or similar grooves. Although a tyre tread consists of the combination and the interaction of various elements, at least part of the public would be able to identify different types of grooves present on a tyre tread.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Case C-2/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 4 January 2019 — A.P. v Riigiprokuratuur
Date: 2019-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative sentence, carrying out of sentence, conditional discharge, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU








C_2019093EN.01003401.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 4 January 2019 — A.P. v Riigiprokuratuur
(Case C-2/19)
(2019/C 93/44)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A.P.

Respondent: Riigiprokuratuur

Question referred

Is the recognition and supervision of execution of a judgment of a Member State compatible with Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (1) of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions even where the sentenced person has by that judgment been conditionally released without any additional obligations being imposed, so that the person’s only obligation is to avoid committing a new intentional offence during the probation period (this being a suspended sentence within the meaning of Paragraph 73 of the Estonian Criminal Code)?


(1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions (OJ 2008 L 337, p. 102).