do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-348/16 OP: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (Arbitration clause — Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Minatran project — Eligible costs — Compensation — Judgment by default — Application to have a judgment set aside)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, claim, computer systems, indemnification, reimbursement of aid, scientific research








C_2019093EN.01004002.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/40






Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA
(Case T-348/16 OP) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Minatran project - Eligible costs - Compensation - Judgment by default - Application to have a judgment set aside))
(2019/C 93/50)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents, and E. Kourakis and P. Dikaiou, lawyers)

Re:

Application by ERCEA to set aside the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16, not published, EU:T:2017:268).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16);










2.


Declares that the claim formulated in debit note No 3241606289 of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) of 26 May 2016 for the return by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis of part of the subsidy it received for the Minatran project, amounting to EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded up to an amount of EUR 233 611,75 and that the latter amount corresponds to eligible costs;










3.


Dismisses the action brought by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis and the application filed by ERCEA as to the remainder;










4.


Orders ERCEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in Cases T-348/16 and T-348/16 OP;










5.


Orders ERCEA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in Case T-348/16 OP-R.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9214 — MUFG HD/Akamai/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, electronic money, financial services, holding company, merger control








C_2019034EN.01000102.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9214 — MUFG HD/Akamai/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 34/02)
On 17 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 32019M9214. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-368/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Grupo Bimbo (ETI Bumbo) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ETI Bumbo — Earlier EU figurative mark BIMBO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the signs — Distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01006002.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/60






Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Grupo Bimbo (ETI Bumbo)
(Case T-368/18) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ETI Bumbo - Earlier EU figurative mark BIMBO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the signs - Distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 93/78)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Eskişehir, Turkey) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, P. Merino Baylos, D. Gómez Sánchez and N. Martínez de las Rivas Malagón, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. A. Fernández-Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2018 (Case R 1459/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Bimbo and ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case T-671/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU work mark TURBO-K — Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K — Relative ground for refusal — Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off — Goodwill)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, chemical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01005401.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/54






Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K)
(Case T-671/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU work mark TURBO-K - Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K - Relative ground for refusal - Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Goodwill))
(2019/C 93/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Turbo-K International Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris and A. Muir Wood, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Turbo-K Ltd (Winchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. van Haperen, lawyer, T. St Quintin, Barrister, and E. Morris, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 (Case R 2135/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Turbo-K and Turbo-K International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;










3.


Orders Turbo-K International Ltd and Turbo-K Ltd each to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
Case T-35/19: Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Benavides Torres/Council
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2019093EN.01007401.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/74






Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Benavides Torres/Council
(Case T-35/19)
(2019/C 93/96)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653, (2) in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and










—


order the defendant to pay costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that his name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063, (4) notwithstanding the fact that he would no longer serve any role within and would not be related to the Venezuelan political or military authorities.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).
Case C-310/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests — Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences — Principle of effectiveness — Taking of evidence — Interception of telecommunications — Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction — Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence — Provisions of national law — Prohibition)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, criminal proceedings, fraud against the EU, jurisdiction, legality, proof, protection of communications, tax offence








C_2019093EN.01000201.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others
(Case C-310/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325(1) TFEU - Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests - Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences - Principle of effectiveness - Taking of evidence - Interception of telecommunications - Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction - Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence - Provisions of national law - Prohibition))
(2019/C 93/02)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

Petar Dzivev, Galina Angelova, Georgi Dimov, Milko Velkov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 325(1) TFEU, and Article 1(1)(b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted to the effect that, in the light of the principle of effectiveness of the prosecution of value added tax (VAT) offences, they do not preclude a national court from applying a national provision excluding, from a prosecution, evidence such as the interception of telecommunications requiring prior judicial authorisation, where that authorisation was given by a court that lacked jurisdiction, in a situation in which that evidence alone is capable of proving that the offences in question were committed.


(1)  OJ C 310, 29.8.2016.
Case C-626/17: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Roma — Italy) — Alberto Rossi v Ministero di Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Fixed-term employment — Justices of the Peace — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judge, temporary employment, working conditions








C_2019112EN.01000702.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/7






Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Roma — Italy) — Alberto Rossi v Ministero di Giustizia
(Case C-626/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Fixed-term employment - Justices of the Peace - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2019/C 112/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alberto Rossi

Defendant: Ministero di Giustizia

Intervener in support of the applicant: Unione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (Unagipa), Associazione Nazionale Guidici di Pace, Coordinamento Nazionale Giustizia di Pace, Organismo Unitario della Magistratura Onoraria — Magistrati Onorari Riuniti, Maria Maddalena Acernese and 656 other Justices of the Peace, Angela Abbondandolo and 139 honorary vice-prosecutors, Santina Adelfio and 101 other honorary judges

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di Pace di Roma (Justice of the Peace of Rome, Italy), by decision of 17 October 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Case C-74/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/138/EC — Taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance — Article 13(13) — Definition of ‘Member State in which the risk is situated’ — Company established in one Member State, providing insurance services relating to contractual risks connected with company conversions in another Member State — Article 157 — Member State levying tax on insurance premiums)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: establishment, indirect tax, insurance company, insurance premium, insured risk, merger, quasi-fiscal charge, reinsurance, tax collection








C_2019093EN.01001702.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/17






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A Ltd
(Case C-74/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance - Article 13(13) - Definition of ‘Member State in which the risk is situated’ - Company established in one Member State, providing insurance services relating to contractual risks connected with company conversions in another Member State - Article 157 - Member State levying tax on insurance premiums))
(2019/C 93/22)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A Ltd

Intervener: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 157(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), as amended by Directive 2013/58/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, read in conjunction with Article 13(13) of Directive 2009/138, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an insurance company established in a Member State offers insurance covering the contractual risks associated with the value of the shares and the fairness of the purchase price paid by the buyer in the acquisition of an undertaking, an insurance contract concluded in that context is subject exclusively to the indirect taxes and parafiscal charges on insurance premiums in the Member State where the policyholder is established.


(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Case C-34/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, principle of subsidiarity, provision of services, telecommunications, trade licence








C_2019182EN.01000501.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
(Case C-34/19)
(2019/C 182/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred







1.


May Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting, including for 1998, the maintenance of an obligation to pay a fee or a charge corresponding (insofar as it is based on the same proportion of turnover) to that which had to be paid under the regime which existed prior to that directive?










2.


In light of the Court’s judgments of 18 September 2003 in Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 and of 21 February 2008 in Case C-296/06, does Directive 97/13/EC preclude a final national judgment given on the basis of an incorrect interpretation or misconstruction of that directive, with the result that the ruling in that judgment may be disapplied by a different court hearing a dispute which concerns the same substantive legal relationship but is different in that it concerns a demand for payment that is merely ancillary by comparison with that which was the subject of the case which led to the incorrect ruling?






(1)  Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorizations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15).
Case T-576/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Mas Que Vinos Global v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EL SEÑORITO — Earlier national word mark SEÑORITA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01005302.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/53






Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Mas Que Vinos Global v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)
(Case T-576/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark EL SEÑORITO - Earlier national word mark SEÑORITA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 93/67)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. (Dosbarrios, Spain) (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Jose Estevez, SA (JESA) (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 (Case R 1775/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between JESA and Mas Que Vinos Global.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mas Que Vinos Global S. L. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Special Report No 2/2019 — ‘Chemical hazards in our food: EU food safety policy protects us but faces challenges’
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, animal feedingstuffs, chemical product, consumer protection, food policy, food safety, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, health risk, pesticide








C_2019021EN.01000701.xml










17.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/7






Special Report No 2/2019
‘Chemical hazards in our food: EU food safety policy protects us but faces challenges’
(2019/C 21/08)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 2/2019 ‘Chemical hazards in our food: EU food safety policy protects us but faces challenges’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu.