do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-92/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Burgo Group SpA v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici — GSE
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, competition policy, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, equal treatment








C_2019182EN.01000901.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Burgo Group SpA v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici — GSE
(Case C-92/19)
(2019/C 182/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Burgo Group SpA

Respondent: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici — GSE

Questions referred







1.


Does Directive 2004/8/EC (1) (in particular Article 12 thereof) preclude an interpretation of Articles 3 and 6 of Legislative Decree No 20/2007 as allowing the benefits referred to in Legislative Decree No 79/1999 (in particular in Article 11 thereof and in Decision No 42/02 of 19 March 2002 of the Autorità dell’energia elettrica e del gas (Electricity and Gas Authority) which constitutes implementation of the preceding provision) to be granted also to non-high-efficiency cogeneration installations even beyond 31 December 2010?










2.


Does Article 107 TFEU preclude an interpretation of Articles 3 and 6 of Legislative Decree No 20/2007, in the sense set out under [1] above, in so far as those provisions, as thus interpreted, might constitute ‘State aid’ and therefore be incompatible with the principle of free competition?










3.


In line with what is set out under [1] and [2] above, and having regard to what is expressly put forward by the appellant, does a provision of national law which allows support schemes to continue to be granted to non-high-efficiency cogeneration until 31 December 2015 comply with the EU-law principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, since that could be the interpretation of domestic Italian law as a result of Article 25(11)(c)(1) of Legislative Decree No 28 of 3 March 2011, which repeals the abovementioned provisions of Article 11 of Legislative Decree No 79/1999 with effect from 1 January 2016, or rather now by 19 July 2014 (as a result of Article 10(15) of Legislative Decree No 102 of 4 July 2014)?






(1)  Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC (OJ 2004 L 52, p. 50).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9197 — Hanon Systems/Magna International (Rotor Business)) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: anti-pollution device, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, thermal equipment, vehicle parts








C_2019058EN.01000301.xml










14.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9197 — Hanon Systems/Magna International (Rotor Business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 58/05)
On 5 February 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 32019M9197. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019046EN.01000201.xml










5.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 February 2019
(2019/C 46/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1445 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,77 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4654 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87678 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4113 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1421 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7030 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,728 




HUF


Hungarian forint


317,80 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2816 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7560 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,9694 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5852 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5011 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9800 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6634 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5489 




KRW


South Korean won


1 282,53 




ZAR


South African rand


15,3420 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7194 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4155 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 037,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6812 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,043 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,1351 




THB


Thai baht


35,846 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2142 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9379 




INR


Indian rupee


82,1905 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9203 — Pierburg/Xingfu/Xingfu Assets) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2019060EN.01000202.xml










15.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9203 — Pierburg/Xingfu/Xingfu Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 60/03)
On 5 February 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 32019M9203. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-82/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 5 February 2019 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PI
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, independence of the judiciary, public prosecutor's department








C_2019122EN.01001301.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/13






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 5 February 2019 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PI
(Case C-82/19)
(2019/C 122/15)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: PI

Questions referred







1.


Is the independence from the executive of a public prosecutor to be decided in accordance with his position under the relevant national legal system? If not what are the criteria according to which independence from the executive is to be decided?










2.


Is a public prosecutor who, in accordance with national law, is subject to a possible direction or instruction either directly or indirectly from a Ministry of Justice, sufficiently independent of the executive to be considered a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision (1)?










3.


If so, must the public prosecutor also be functionally independent of the executive and what are the criteria according to which functional independence is to be decided?










4.


If independent of the executive, is a public prosecutor who is confined to initiating and conducting investigations and assuring that such investigations are conducted objectively and lawfully, the issuing of indictments, executing judicial decisions and conducting the prosecution of criminal offences, and does not issue national warrants and may not perform judicial functions a ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision?










5.


Is the Public Prosecutor in Zwickau a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).
Case C-83/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt (Romania) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ v Inspecția Judiciară
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, corruption, disciplinary proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judicial reform, jurisdiction, right to justice, rule of law, transitional justice








C_2019187EN.01003101.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Olt (Romania) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ v Inspecția Judiciară
(Case C-83/19)
(2019/C 187/36)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Olt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’

Defendant: Inspecția Judiciară

Questions referred







1.


Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) be considered to be an act of an institution of the European Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, and therefore amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union?










2.


Do the terms, nature and duration of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, come within the scope of application of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005? Are the requirements laid down in the reports prepared in the context of that mechanism binding on Romania?










3.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that it obliges the Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law, that is to say, guarantees of an independent disciplinary procedure for Romanian judges, by eliminating all risks of political influence over the conduct of those procedures, such as direct Government appointment of the management of the Inspecția Judiciară (Judicial Inspection, Romania), even on a provisional basis?










4.


Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to comply with the rule of law criteria, also required in the reports prepared in the context of the cooperation and verification mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, in the case of procedures whereby the Government directly appoints the management of the Inspecția Judiciară (Judicial Inspection, Romania), even on a provisional basis?






(1)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56, Special edition: Chapter 11 Vol. 51 p. 55).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9241 — Cattolica/IMA France/IMA Italia Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, indemnity insurance, insurance company, life assurance, merger control, provision of services, reinsurance








C_2019057EN.01000202.xml










13.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9241 — Cattolica/IMA France/IMA Italia Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 57/04)
On 5 February 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 32019M9241. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-177/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078)) (New varieties of plants — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) — Designation of another examination office — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: pip fruit, plant breeding, plant variety right








C_2019103EN.01002201.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/22






Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))
(Case T-177/16) (1)

((New varieties of plants - Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) - Designation of another examination office - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to state reasons))
(2019/C 103/27)
Language of the case: German.

Parties


Applicant: Mema GmbH LG (Terlan, Italy) (represented by B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by M. Ekvad, F. Mattina, O. Lamberti and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the CPVO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case T-675/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance azadirachtin — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment — No prima facie case)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, market approval, pesticide, plant health control








C_2019139EN.01005901.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/59






Order of the President of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA
(Case T-675/18 R)
(Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance azadirachtin - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment - No prima facie case)
(2019/C 139/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Trifolio-M GmbH (Lahnau, Germany), Oxon Italia SpA (Milan, Italy), Mitsui AgriScience International SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Raes, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority on the requests for confidentiality made in relation to the conclusions on the Peer Review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Azadirachtin of 11 September 2018 (EFSA/LA/DEC/19777743/2018).

Operative part of the order







1.



The application for interim measures is dismissed.











2.



The order of 20 November 2018, Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA, (T-675/18 R) is cancelled.











3.



Each party shall bear its own costs.
Case C-90/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Ortona, Ecolan SpA
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, national law, public authorities, public procurement, services contract, shareholding, tendering








C_2019182EN.01000701.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Ortona, Ecolan SpA
(Case C-90/19)
(2019/C 182/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Rieco SpA

Respondents: Comune di Ortona, Ecolan SpA

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law (in particular the principle of free administration by public authorities and the principle that the different rules governing the award of service contracts and the management of services relevant to public authorities must be essentially equivalent) preclude a national law (such as that set out in Article 192(2) of the Italian Public Procurement Code, Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016), which places the in-house award of contracts on a subordinate level to award by means of public tender procedure and establishes it as an exception to the latter, by: (i) permitting contracts to be awarded in house only when there is clear evidence of failure in the relevant market, and (ii) requiring authorities intending to make an award by inter-organisational delegation to provide specific reasons with regard to the benefits for society at large accruing from that form of award?










2.


Does EU law (in particular Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) concerning the in-house award of contracts where similar control is exercised jointly with other authorities) preclude a provision of national law (such as that set out in Article 4(1) of the Consolidated Law concerning companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership — Legislative Decree No 175 of 2016) which prevents a public authority from acquiring a shareholding (in any event one that can guarantee control or power of veto) in a body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings, where that authority intends in any event to acquire subsequently a position of joint control and therefore the possibility of making direct awards to that body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings?






(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).
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_2019046EN.01000301.xml










5.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/3






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 46/03)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 565


29 January 2019


1,2-dichloroethane
EC No 203-458-1
CAS No 107-06-2


Akzo Nobel Chemicals SpA, Localita Colafonda 3/A, Cavanella Po, 45011, Adria, Rovigo, Italy


REACH/19/13/0


Use of 1,2-dichloroethane as recyclable solvent in the production of a polyacrylate surfactant


22 November 2026


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm