do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-11/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2019 — Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea v Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova
Date: 2019-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Veneto, award of contract, services contract, services of general interest, tendering, transport of patients








C_2019164EN.01000701.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2019 — Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea v Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova
(Case C-11/19)
(2019/C 164/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea

Respondent: Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova

Questions referred







1.


Where both parties concerned are public bodies, do recital 28 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) and Articles 10 and 12(4) thereof preclude the applicability of Article 5 of Veneto Regional Law 26/2012, in conjunction with Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 thereof, on the basis of the public-public partnership referred to in Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 5(6) of Legislative Decree 50/2016 and 15 of Law 241/1990?










2.


Where both parties concerned are public bodies, do recital 28 of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 10 and 12(4) thereof preclude the applicability of the provisions of Veneto Regional Law 26/2012, on the basis of the public-public partnership referred to in Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 5(6) of Legislative Decree 50/2016 and 15 of Law 241/1990, in the limited sense of placing the contracting authority under an obligation to give the reasons for the decision to award the contract for the provision of ordinary patient transport services by way of tender procedure rather than by direct award of the contract?






(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Case C-8/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 January 2019 — Criminal proceedings against RH
Date: 2019-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, detention before trial, interpretation of the law, judicial review, legality, preliminary ruling procedure, proof, right to justice








C_2019093EN.01003501.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/35






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 January 2019 — Criminal proceedings against RH
(Case C-8/19)
(2019/C 93/46)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

RH

Questions referred







1.


Is an interpretation of national law, namely Article 489(2) of the NPK, which requires the referring court to adjudicate immediately on the legality of pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings instead of waiting for an answer from the Court of Justice when the referring court has made a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the legality of that detention, consistent with Article 267 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter?




If the first question is answered in the negative:






2.1.


Taking account of the final sentence of recital 16 of Directive 2016/343, (1) must the national court interpret its national law as meaning that, before issuing a decision extending a pre-trial detention, it must ‘verify that there are sufficient elements of incriminating evidence against the suspect or accused person to justify the decision concerned’?










2.2.


If the accused person’s defence counsel challenges the existence of ‘sufficient elements of incriminating evidence’, with full and well founded arguments, in the context of the judicial review of the extension of the pre-trial detention, is the national court required to give a response, in accordance with the requirement of an effective remedy provided for in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter?










2.3.


Does the national court infringe Article 4 [of Directive 2016/343], read together with Article 3 [thereof], as interpreted in the judgment [of 19 September 2018, Milev (C-310/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:732)], if it justifies its decision on the extension of the pre-trial detention in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention and clearly identifies the existence of evidence in support of the charge which, by nature ‘would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned might have committed an offence’, and Article 5(4) of the Convention, in particular, by giving a decision on the objections of the accused person’s defence counsel on the legality of the pre-trial detention which is effective and based on the facts?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings

OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.
Case T-12/19: Action brought on 7 January 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)
Date: 2019-01-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019072EN.01004501.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/45






Action brought on 7 January 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)
(Case T-12/19)
(2019/C 72/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

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 figurative mark APE TEES — Application for registration No 14 319 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2018 in Case R 2474/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;










—


alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;










—


order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the appeal and opposition proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article (8)(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/23 of 7 January 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq
Date: 2019-01-07
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iraq, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








L_2019005EN.01000101.xml










8.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 5/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/23
of 7 January 2019
         
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (1), and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 lists public bodies, corporations and agencies and natural and legal persons, bodies and entities of the previous government of Iraq covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources that were located outside Iraq on the date of 22 May 2003 under that Regulation.












(2)


On 27 December 2018, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one entry from the list of persons or entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.












(3)


Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.


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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 January 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 169, 8.7.2003, p. 6.




ANNEX
In Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, the following entry is deleted:







‘106.


RAYON STATE ESTABLISHMENT (alias RAYON STATE COMPANY). Address: P.O. Box 11230, Hindiya, Babylon, Iraq.’
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019003EN.01000101.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 January 2019
(2019/C 3/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1403 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,20 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4679 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89988 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2460 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1256 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8648 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,653 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,45 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2957 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6656 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1707 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6189 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5328 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9325 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7045 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5525 




KRW


South Korean won


1 279,13 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1175 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8280 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4335 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 241,35 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7106 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,809 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,6790 




THB


Thai baht


36,587 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2889 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,3080 




INR


Indian rupee


79,4315 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-99/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 January 2019 by BI against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 26 November 2018 in Case T-626/18 AJ BI v European Commission
Date: 2019-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: jurisdiction, legal expenses








C_2019220EN.01001502.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/15






Appeal brought on 7 January 2019 by BI against the order of the President of the General Court delivered on 26 November 2018 in Case T-626/18 AJ BI v European Commission
(Case C-99/19 P)
(2019/C 220/20)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: BI

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 21 May 2019 and ordered the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9148 — Univar/Nexeo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, distributor, economic concentration, merger control, plastics








C_2019003EN.01000601.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 3/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9148 — Univar/Nexeo)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 3/04)

1.   
On 19 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:






—


Univar Inc. (‘Univar’, United States),










—


Nexeo Solutions Inc. (‘Nexeo’, United States).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Univar: distribution of chemicals and plastics, globally,
—   for Nexeo: distribution of chemicals and plastics, globally.


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.9148 — Univar/Nexeo
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.