do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-86/19: Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Solnova v EUIPO — Canina Pharma (BIO-INSECT Shocker)
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, fruit, insecticide, live animal, malt, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019122EN.01003001.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/30






Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Solnova v EUIPO — Canina Pharma (BIO-INSECT Shocker)
(Case T-86/19)
(2019/C 122/34)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Solnova AG (Zollikon, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canina Pharma GmbH (Hamm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark BIO-INSECT Shocker — Application for registration No 14 837 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2018 in Case R 276/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019060EN.01000301.xml










15.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 February 2019
(2019/C 60/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1268 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,12 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4615 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87945 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4775 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1370 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7585 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,790 




HUF


Hungarian forint


319,07 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3382 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7439 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,9912 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5848 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4949 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8426 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6488 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5310 




KRW


South Korean won


1 270,39 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9668 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6347 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4063 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 876,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5928 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,992 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,4522 




THB


Thai baht


35,331 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2703 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9131 




INR


Indian rupee


80,2030 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-760/18: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, commodities exchange, crude oil, financial derivative, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019148EN.01006402.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/64






Order of the General Court of 15 February 2019 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)
(Case T-760/18) (1)

(2019/C 148/65)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case T-87/19: Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Broughton v Eurojust
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, language skills, remuneration of work








C_2019139EN.01006801.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/68






Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Broughton v Eurojust
(Case T-87/19)
(2019/C 139/71)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Jon Broughton (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: Eurojust

Form of order sought







—


annul the contested decisions of Eurojust 62/2018/AD of 20 November 2018, AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27 of 4 May 2018 and the recovery decision of 4 May 2018 pursuant to Article 270 TFEU;










—


declare that French must be regarded as Mr Broughton’s second language and Dutch as his third language;










—


determine that the recovery ordered against the applicant is unlawful and cease it and determine that the applicant must be reimbursed the amounts recovered by Eurojust;










—


determine that Eurojust must return the applicant to the same legal position he was in prior to the contested decisions;










—


order Eurojust to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, directed against all the contested decisions






—


the investigation was not carried out objectively and carefully;










—


the facts which form the basis of the contested decisions were not established on the basis of a careful and independent investigation;










—


the decision is factually unfounded;










—


the applicant’s interests were not sufficiently taken into account, in breach of the ‘equality of arms’ principle.














2.


Second plea in law, directed against orders AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27: the decisions are factually unfounded






—


the facts underpinning the decision cannot support the decision;










—


the facts were incorrectly laid down;










—


the evidence was assessed incorrectly.














3.


Third plea in law, directed against the recovery decision






—


the decision is factually unfounded;










—


the decision was insufficiently reasoned.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9259 — Investindustrial/Natra) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cocoa, confectionery product, economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control








C_2019060EN.01003501.xml










15.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 60/35






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9259 — Investindustrial/Natra)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 60/08)

1.   
On 8 February 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:






—


Investindustrial VI L.P. (‘Investindustrial’, United Kingdom), belonging to the Investindustrial Group, which is ultimately controlled by Investindustrial S.A. (Luxembourg),










—


Natra S.A. (‘Natra’, Spain).




Investindustrial acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Natra.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a public bid announced on 1 February 2019.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Investindustrial: investment fund of the Investindustrial Group, which invests predominantly in medium-sized companies active in industrial manufacturing, consumer, retail and leisure, and business services,
—   for Natra: specialized in cocoa and chocolate products covering all the stages of the value chain.


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.9259 — Investindustrial/Natra
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9269 — Engie/BPCE/ENGIE PV Curbans) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, financial institution, gas industry, merger control, power plant, solar energy, wholesale trade








C_2019073EN.01000102.xml










26.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9269 — Engie/BPCE/ENGIE PV Curbans)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 73/02)
On 15 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 French 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 32019M9269. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-118/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2019 — ZS v PVA Landesstelle Salzburg
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, free movement of persons, integration of people with disabilities, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, right to work, social security legislation








C_2019172EN.01001201.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2019 — ZS v PVA Landesstelle Salzburg
(Case C-118/19)
(2019/C 172/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ZS

Defendant: PVA Landesstelle Salzburg
The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2019.
Case C-130/19: Action brought on 15 February 2019 — European Court of Auditors v Karel Pinxten
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: abuse of power, breach of trust, conflict of interest, economic offence, member of the Court of Auditors (EU), misuse of a right, sanction (EU)








C_2019148EN.01002401.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/24






Action brought on 15 February 2019 — European Court of Auditors v Karel Pinxten
(Case C-130/19)
(2019/C 148/22)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: C. Lesauvage, E. von Bardeleben, J. Vermer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Karel Pinxten

Form of order sought







—


Declare that Mr Pinxten no longer meets the obligations arising from his office under Articles 285 and 286 TFEU and the rules adopted in application thereof;










—


Impose, consequently, the penalty laid down in Article 286(6) TFEU, the Court of Auditors leaving it to the discretion of the Court to determine the scope;










—


Order Mr Pinxten to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court of Auditors complains that Mr Pinxten:






—


firstly, made improper use of the resources of the Court of Auditors in order to finance activities with no connection or incompatible with his duties as a Member;










—


secondly, made improper and unlawful use of tax privileges;










—


thirdly, made false insurance claims in the context of alleged accidents involving the service vehicle made available to him;










—


fourthly, exercised managed activities for a commercial company and intense political activity within a political party although he was in the service of the Court of Auditors;










—


fifthly, created a situation of conflict of interests by making a service offer to an official of an audited entity.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9110 — Amerra/Mubadala/Nireus/Selonda) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 347/07
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fish farming, investment company, merger control








C_2019347EN.01000701.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/7






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9110 — Amerra/Mubadala/Nireus/Selonda)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 347/07)
On 15 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32019M9110. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objectionsText with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.
Date: 2019-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Marches, State aid, control of State aid








C_2019061EN.01001001.xml










15.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/10






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
(2019/C 61/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


07.12.2018




Aid number


SA.51385 (2018/N)




Member State


Italy




Region


MARCHE


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Misura 07 ‘Servizi di base e rinnovamento dei villaggi nelle zone rurali (Art. 20)” Sottomisura 7.4 Operazione A) Investimenti nella creazione, miglioramento o ampliamento di servizi locali di base e infrastrutture’, Sottomisura 7.5 Operazione A) Investimenti in infrastrutture ricreazionali per uso pubblico, informazioni turistiche, infrastrutture, Sottomisura 7.6 Operazione A) Investimenti relativi al patrimonio culturale e naturale delle aree rurali, Sottomisura 7.2 operazione A) — azione C del Gal Colli Esini ‘Attivazione servizi di incubazione d’impresa, luoghi di co-working, fab-lab’.




Legal basis


Programma Sviluppo Rurale 2014-2020 Regione Marche
DGR n. 281 del 12/03/2018: Approvazione del PSR della Regione Marche
Bozza di DGR ‘Approvazione Criteri e modalità attuative generali del Programma di Sviluppo Rurale 2014 — 2020 per le sottomisure 7.4 operazione A) — 7.5 operazione A) — 7.6 operazione A) e per la sottomisura 7.2 operazione A) azione C del Gal Colli Esini — Istituzione regime di aiuto e notifica alla Commissione Europea’ DGR 262/2016, allegato B




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Aid for basic services and village renewal in rural areas




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 33.0189 (in millions)




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


until 31.12.2020




Economic sectors


Landscape service activities, Educational support activities, Residential care activities, Creative; arts and entertainment activities, Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Autorità di Gestione del PSR Marche 2014-2020




via Tiziano, 44-60125 Ancona








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.