do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-21/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01007101.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/71






Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
(Case T-21/19)
(2019/C 93/92)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

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 mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reverse the contested decision;










—


reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;










—


award the costs to the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019011EN.01000501.xml










11.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 January 2019
(2019/C 11/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1535 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,70 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4655 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90423 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2303 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1276 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7493 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,626 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,16 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2959 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6813 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2709 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6031 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5251 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0414 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6983 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5584 




KRW


South Korean won


1 289,04 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9731 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8213 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4255 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 240,13 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7265 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,167 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,2491 




THB


Thai baht


36,802 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2451 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1283 




INR


Indian rupee


81,2005 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-20/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019082EN.01006401.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/64






Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
(Case T-20/19)
(2019/C 82/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

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 word mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 872

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 77/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reverse the contested decision;










—


reject the EUTM No 15 730 872 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;










—


award the costs to the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9170 — EPIC SNCF Mobilités/Ceetrus/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, economic concentration, merger control, rail transport








C_2019011EN.01000801.xml










11.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9170 — EPIC SNCF Mobilités/Ceetrus/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 11/05)

1.   
On 21 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:






—


SNCF Mobilités (France), controlled by the French State,










—


Ceetrus France (‘Ceetrus’, France), controlled by the holding company Suraumarché.




SNCF Mobilités and Ceetrus acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a single-purpose semi-public company (société d’économie mixte à opération unique — SEMOP) called ‘Gare du Nord 2024’, the purpose of which is to execute a concession contract and an agreement for temporary occupation of publicly-owned property constituting rights in rem, authorising the SEMOP to occupy areas in stations used for activities of shops and services.
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:
—   SNCF Mobilités: transport of passengers and goods and, through its branch Gares & Connexions, management and development of the 3 000 French passenger stations,
—   Ceetrus: mixed real estate development.


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 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 to it their possible observations on the proposed operation.
Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date of publication of this notification. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9170 — EPIC SNCF Mobilités/Ceetrus/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.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/51 of 11 January 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iraq, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








L_2019010EN.01006001.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 10/60








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/51
of 11 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 8 January 2019, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove three entries 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, 11 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, the following entries are deleted:






‘42.


GENERAL ESTABLISHMENT FOR DESIGNS AND RESEARCH. Address: P.O. Box 6061, Aamiriya, 7 Nisan, Aamiriya, Iraq.’










‘126.


STATE ENTERPRISE FOR ALUMINUM SEMI PRODUCTS. Address: P.O. Box 38, Nasiriyah, Iraq.’










‘130.


STATE ENTERPRISE FOR CABLES AND WIRES (alias STATE CABLES AND WIRES ENTERPRISE). Address: P.O. Box 44, Nassiriyah, Iraq.’
Case T-21/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019082EN.01006402.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/64






Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
(Case T-21/19)
(2019/C 82/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

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 word mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reverse the contested decision;










—


reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;










—


award the costs to the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-25/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — AD v ECHA
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, indemnification, right to justice, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2019103EN.01004901.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/49






Action brought on 11 January 2019 — AD v ECHA
(Case T-25/19)
(2019/C 103/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AD (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract with the ECHA;










—


annul the vacancy notice published on 9 March 2018 by the ECHA for a contractual agent FG II post, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to those the applicant was performing under her temporary agent contract;










—


if need be, annul also the defendant’s decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the non-renewal decision;










—


order the compensation of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Work Instructions laid down by ECHA regarding the renewal or non-renewal process relating to contracts and of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state sufficient reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated by the ECHA to justify the non-renewal of the employment contract are manifestly mistaken and show a misuse of power.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9210 — NN Group/Allianz Group/NRP/Target Entities) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2019022EN.01000102.xml










18.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9210 — NN Group/Allianz Group/NRP/Target Entities)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 22/02)
On 11 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 32019M9210. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9240 — Siemens Project Ventures/Veja Mate Offshore Project) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, energy production, investment company, medical institution, merger control, power plant, wind energy








C_2019011EN.01000601.xml










11.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9240 — Siemens Project Ventures/Veja Mate Offshore Project)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 11/04)

1.   
On 3 January 2019, 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:






—


Siemens Project Ventures GmbH (‘SPV’, Germany), belonging to the Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (‘Siemens AG’, Germany).










—


Veja Mate Offshore Project GmbH (‘VMOP’, Germany).




SPV acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over VMOP. The concentration is accomplished by way of changes in the shareholder structure.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


SPV is active in the development and financing of projects and investments in these projects, in particular with regard to energy, hospitals and infrastructure.










—


VMOP operates an offshore wind farm with a capacity of 402 MW in the German North Sea.






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.9240 — Siemens Project Ventures/Veja Mate Offshore Project
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-577/17: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, parties involved in the proceedings: Clinton Osas Alake alias Klenti Solim and Others
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2019112EN.01003901.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/39






Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, parties involved in the proceedings: Clinton Osas Alake alias Klenti Solim and Others
(Case C-577/17) (1)

(2019/C 112/45)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case T-18/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Brown v Commission
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, expatriate worker, interest, nationality, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019072EN.01004601.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/46






Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Brown v Commission
(Case T-18/19)
(2019/C 72/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Colin M. Brown (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Van Damme, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 19 March 2018 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements that the applicant ceased to be entitled to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance;










—


order that the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance be restored with effect from 1 December 2017;










—


order that the allowances which were not paid between 1 December 2017 and the date of re-establishment of the applicant’s entitlement be paid to the applicant with interest;










—


annul, if it accepts the plea of illegality, the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to the Applicant until such time as the Institutions replace it with non-discriminatory provisions;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an incorrect interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations because the Commission was wrong to interpret that provision as meaning that a right to an expatriation allowance, acquired based on the place of origin and center of interests of an official in another Member State prior to his recruitment, is to be re-assessed in case the official concerned subsequently acquires the nationality of the Member State where he remains employed.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 19 March 2018 discriminates against the applicant by subjecting his entitlement to the expropriation allowance to the conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that, should the General Court find that the Commission was correct to determine the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the Commission nevertheless failed to interpret that provision in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that, if all of three other pleas are rejected, Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is illegal and inapplicable in the sense that, and in so far as, it produces unjustified discrimination as regards persons in the situation of the applicant, for the reasons advanced in support of the second plea.
Case C-566/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2019112EN.01004002.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/40






Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF
(Case C-566/18) (1)

(2019/C 112/47)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.