do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-164/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Niche Generics Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-701/14: Niche Generics v Commission
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, cardiovascular disease, cartel, equal treatment, indemnification, medicinal product, patent law, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2019148EN.01003101.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/31






Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Niche Generics Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-701/14: Niche Generics v Commission
(Case C-164/19 P)
(2019/C 148/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Niche Generics Ltd (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, M. Healy, Solicitor, B. Hoorelbeke, advocaat, S. Mobley, Solicitor, H. Sheraton, Solicitor, A. Robertson QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Contested Judgment in its entirety;










—


Annul the Contested Decision in its entirety in so far its relates to Niche; and










—


Order the Commission to pay its own costs and Niche's costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Niche submits the General Court erred in law:






—


First, the General Court erred in law by not applying the objective necessity test in BAT.










—


Second, in the event that settlement agreements fall within Art. 101 TFEU, the General Court erred in law by mischaracterising Niche's settlement agreement as a ‘by object’ violation.










—


Third, the General Court infringed Art. 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice duty to state reasons when it rejected Niche's interpretation of the settlement agreement without addressing its legal arguments.










—


Fourth, the General Court erred in law by concluding Niche was a potential competitor to Servier.










—


Fifth, the General Court infringed the fundamental principle of equal treatment by treating Niche differently to similarly situated generics and erroneously characterising Niche's settlement agreement as an Art. 101(1) TFEU ‘by object’ violation.










—


Sixth, the General Court erred in law by not recognising that the settlement agreement satisfies the exemption criteria under Art.101(3) TFEU.










—


Seventh, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the legal test for determining a breach of Niche's rights of defence and/or the principle of sound administration.










—


Eighth, the General Court infringed the general EU law principle of proportionality by confirming a level of fine that was disproportionate to Niche's financial means.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9226 — CommScope/ARRIS) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2019083EN.01000101.xml










5.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9226 — CommScope/ARRIS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 83/01)
On 22 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 32019M9226. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-153/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2019 — FZ v DER Touristik GmbH
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, damages, indemnification, travel agency, traveller








C_2019182EN.01001901.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2019 — FZ v DER Touristik GmbH
(Case C-153/19)
(2019/C 182/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FZ

Defendant: DER Touristik GmbH

Question referred

Do a traveller’s claims against a travel organiser, under a contract for travel, for a price reduction because of shortcomings in the flight on account of a flight delay constitute claims to further compensation under Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1), and can compensation granted as a result of the flight delay in application mutatis mutandis of Article 7 of the Regulation be deducted from those claims in accordance with Article 12 of that regulation?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-162/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Iceland Foods Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-267/18: Iceland Foods v EUIPO - Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, animal product, beverage, foodstuff, milk product, processed foodstuff, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019357EN.01000301.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/3






Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Iceland Foods Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-267/18: Iceland Foods v EUIPO - Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)
(Case C-162/19 P)
(2019/C 357/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Iceland Foods Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, J. Hertzog, C. Hill and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 5 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded and that Iceland Foods Ltd shall bear its own costs.
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a Contracting Entity
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, award of contract, newspaper, postal service, press








C_2019069EN.01000601.xml










22.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/6






Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Contracting Entity
(2019/C 69/04)
On 7 December 2018 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 10 December 2018.
This request, made by Hrvatska pošta, concerns express parcel, press and newspapers services and unaddressed mail services in Croatia. Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out, shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.
The Commission is allowed a period of 105 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 23 May 2019.
According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same sector or activity in Croatia before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Case C-161/19: Action brought on 22 February 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Lower Austria, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, hunting, hunting regulations, infringement procedure (EU), protection of animals








C_2019148EN.01003001.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/30






Action brought on 22 February 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-161/19)
(2019/C 148/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by authorising the springtime hunting of woodcocks in the Land of Lower Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds; (1)











—


order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the authorisation of springtime hunting of woodcocks (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria. Male woodcocks may be hunted during courtship in that Land between 1 March and 15 April, and a maximum number of 1410 (since February 2017: 759) woodcocks may be killed.
The Commission claims that the legislation in question infringes the prohibition of springtime hunting in Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147.
The Republic of Austria contends that the legislation is covered by the derogation in Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147. Under that provision, Member States may derogate inter alia from Article 7(4) of the directive, where there is no other satisfactory solution, in order to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers. In accordance with the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, it is for the Member States to establish that the conditions for its application are met.
The Commission claims that the Republic of Austria has neither shown that there is no other satisfactory solution within the meaning of the introductory sentence of Article 9(1) nor established that the authorised maximum number of specimens that may be killed meets the requirement of ‘small numbers’ in Article 9(1)(c) of the directive. Autumn hunting appears to be a satisfactory alternative, as non-negligible numbers of woodcocks are also present in the Lower Austrian hunting areas in autumn. The Republic of Austria has not provided any convincing evidence for its assertion that springtime hunting is more considerate towards the population of woodcocks than autumn hunting. In addition, the calculation of the ‘small numbers’ is incorrect, since the Austrian figures are based on the wrong reference population.


(1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.
Case T-128/19: Action brought on 22 February 2019 — Hemp Foods Australia v EUIPO — Cabrejos (Sativa)
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, food additive, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019182EN.01003301.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/33






Action brought on 22 February 2019 — Hemp Foods Australia v EUIPO — Cabrejos (Sativa)
(Case T-128/19)
(2019/C 182/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hemp Foods Australia Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: M. Holah and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: César Raúl Dávila Cabrejos (Lima, Peru)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark Sativa — International registration designating the European Union No 1 259 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 1041/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-154/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus) lodged on 22 February 2019 — Cyprus Central Authority v GA
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Germany, Hamburg, Schengen Information System, criminal proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judicial review, public prosecutor's department, town








C_2019164EN.01002401.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus) lodged on 22 February 2019 — Cyprus Central Authority v GA
(Case C-154/19)
(2019/C 164/27)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cyprus Central Authority

Defendant: GA

Questions referred







1.


Should the independence from the executive of a public prosecutor’s office which issues a European arrest warrant in accordance with the applicable national law be judged by its role in the relevant national legal system? If not, by what criteria should its independence from the executive be judged?










2.


Is the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office, which forms part of the executive, rather than the judiciary, under national German law, is part of the structure of the Ministry for Justice and is required to prosecute criminal offenders where it considers appropriate, having appraised all the evidence, both incriminating and exculpatory, sufficiently independent an authority involved in the dispensation of criminal justice to qualify as a ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 (1) on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States?










3.


If the answer is in the affirmative, should the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office also be operationally independent from the executive in respect of all cases handled by it and by what criteria should that operational independence be judged?










4.


Given that, under German law, a European arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office is subject to incidental — rather than direct — judicial review, by challenging the alert entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) once the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued, is a European arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision that is compatible with the principle of mutual recognition enshrined in Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision?






(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Corrigendum to the publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 17(6) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (OJ C 317, 23.9.2017)
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Guatemala, consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, spirits








C_2019069EN.01000801.xml










22.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/8






Corrigendum to the publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 17(6) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 317 of 23 September 2017
)
(2019/C 69/06)
On page 8, point 7, fourth paragraph:

for:


‘The ageing area is situated at altitudes of over 2 400 meters.’


read:


‘The ageing area is situated at altitudes of over 2 300 meters.’
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019069EN.01000101.xml










22.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 February 2019
(2019/C 69/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1354 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,70 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4619 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86805 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6188 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1367 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7808 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,648 




HUF


Hungarian forint


317,24 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3346 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7565 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0442 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5969 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4951 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9098 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6648 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5352 




KRW


South Korean won


1 277,61 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8539 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6275 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4155 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 978,50 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6320 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,193 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,3534 




THB


Thai baht


35,390 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2476 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8165 




INR


Indian rupee


80,7435 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9273 — CVC/April) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2019089EN.01000101.xml










8.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9273 — CVC/April)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 89/01)
On 22 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 32019M9273. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR) — Competent authorities — List of competent authorities referred to in Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ C 194, 6.6.2018)
Date: 2019-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, air safety, air transport, data collection, data protection, data transmission, exchange of information, protection of privacy, terrorism








C_2019069EN.01000701.xml










22.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 69/7






Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR) — Competent authorities — List of competent authorities referred to in Article 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 194 of 6 June 2018
)
(2019/C 69/05)
On page 4, indent ‘in Latvia’:

for:







 


‘Drošības policija;










 


Valsts policija;










 


Valsts robežsardze;










 


Lekšējās drošības birojs;










 


Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs;










 


Militārā policija;










 


Militārās izlūkošanas un drošības dienests;










 


Satversmes aizsardzības birojs;










 


Valsts ieņēmumu dienesta Finanšu policijas pārvalde un Muitas policijas pārvalde;










 


Prokuratūra.’,





read:







 


‘Valsts drošības dienests;










 


Valsts policija;










 


Valsts robežsardze;










 


Iekšējās drošības birojs;










 


Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs










 


Militārā policija;










 


Militārās izlūkošanas un drošības dienests;










 


Satversmes aizsardzības birojs;










 


Valsts ieņēmumu dienesta Finanšu policijas pārvalde un Muitas policijas pārvalde;










 


prokuratūra.’.