do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-8/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Repsol v EUIPO (INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO)
Date: 2019-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, energy production, oil refining, petroleum product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, waste management








C_2019072EN.01004201.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/42






Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Repsol v EUIPO (INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO)
(Case T-8/19)
(2019/C 72/54)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J. C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO’ — Application for registration No 17 258 807

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 in Case R 1173/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Call for proposals and related activities under the 2019-2020 work programme of the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2019-2020) complementing the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
Date: 2019-01-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EAEC, EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, action programme, innovation, invitation to tender, vocational training








C_2019005EN.01000301.xml










8.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/3






Call for proposals and related activities under the 2019-2020 work programme of the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2019-2020) complementing the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
(2019/C 5/03)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals and related activities under 2019-2020 work programme of the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2019-2020) complementing the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. This work programme was adopted by the Commission through Decision C(2018) 8412 of 14 December 2018.
The call and the work programme are subject to the availability of the appropriations provided for in the draft budget for the corresponding years by the budgetary authority or, if the budget for a specific year is not adopted, as provided for in the system of provisional twelfths.
This work programme, including deadlines and budgets for the activities, are available through the Funding & Tenders Portal (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/programmes/h2020) along with information on the modalities of the calls and related activities, and guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals. All this information will be updated as necessary on the same Portal.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9191 — SoftwareONE/Comparex) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, distributor, economic concentration, help desk, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2019021EN.01000402.xml










17.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9191 — SoftwareONE/Comparex)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 21/05)
On 8 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 32019M9191. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-9/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — ClientEarth v EIB
Date: 2019-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative measure, board of directors, environmental law, environmental protection, non-governmental organisation








C_2019072EN.01004301.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/43






Action brought on 8 January 2019 — ClientEarth v EIB
(Case T-9/19)
(2019/C 72/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Flynn, QC and H. Leith, barrister)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the refusal of the EIB to conduct an internal review pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging errors in law in the application of the Aarhus Regulation, with regard to the status of ClientEarth as a non-governmental organisation, the concept of ‘administrative act’, the definition of measures of individual scope, the legal effects of the EIB Board of Directors’ decision, as well as the limits of ‘environmental law’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure of the defendant to provide adequate reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9202 — Bain Capital/Oscar Holding) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, large vehicle, light-duty vehicle, merger control, retail trade, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2019021EN.01000401.xml










17.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9202 — Bain Capital/Oscar Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 21/04)
On 8 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 32019M9202. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-01-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019005EN.01000201.xml










8.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 January 2019
(2019/C 5/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1445 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,90 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4675 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89720 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2235 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1227 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8018 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,572 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2908 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6625 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1325 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6040 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5281 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9677 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6925 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5531 




KRW


South Korean won


1 281,15 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8644 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8421 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4290 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 122,63 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7125 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,980 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,5664 




THB


Thai baht


36,607 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2289 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1202 




INR


Indian rupee


79,6895 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-13/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2019-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member States' contribution, financial loss, liability of the State, own resources, payment, rights of the defence








C_2019103EN.01004801.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/48






Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-13/19)
(2019/C 103/63)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


rule that the European Commission has breached its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by failing, in connection with the conditional provision of traditional own resources of CZK 40 482 255 by the Czech Republic, to bring proceedings against the Czech Republic for failure to fulfil obligations in this connection or to return the sum at issue, and










—


order the European 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.
The Czech Republic is of the opinion that the obligation upon the European Commission to take the abovementioned action follows from the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with the right to effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Having regard to the fact that, according to case-law of the Court of Justice, (1) only the Court of Justice may authoritatively settle, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, a dispute between a Member State and the European Commission in the area of traditional own resources, the European Commission must, in connection with the execution of the conditional payment in question, bring such proceedings without undue delay or return that payment if it finds no grounds upon which to bring such proceedings.
The Czech Republic paid the sum at issue into the European Commission’s account as far back as 2015. However, the European Commission has not brought proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations in that case and has not returned the sum in question conditionally paid to it, even though the Czech Republic has formally called upon it to do so. The Czech Republic therefore submits that the conditions have been met for a finding that the Commission has failed to act.


(1)  Compare judgment of 25 October 2017, Slovakia v Commission (C-593/15 P and C-594/15 P, EU:C:2017:800) and judgment of 25 October 2017, Romania v Commission (C-599/15 P, EU:C:207:801).