do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-199/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 27 February 2019 — RL sp. z o.o., having its seat in Ł. v J.M.
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, application of EU law, contract, delivery, goods and services, hiring, payment, provision of services








C_2019164EN.01003001.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 27 February 2019 — RL sp. z o.o., having its seat in Ł. v J.M.
(Case C-199/19)
(2019/C 164/33)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RL sp. z o.o., having its seat in Ł.

Defendant: J.M.

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, (1) as transposed into the Polish legal order by Article 4(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 8 marca 2013 r. o terminach zapłaty w transakcjach handlowych (Law of 8 March 2013 on Payment Terms in Commercial Transactions) (consolidated text: Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 2019, item 118), be interpreted as meaning that contracts the characteristic performance of which consists in providing a temporary right to use goods in exchange for rent (for instance, lease or rental agreements) must also be regarded as transactions which lead to the delivery of goods or the provision of services for remuneration (commercial transactions)?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 5 of Directive 2011/7/EU, as transposed into the Polish legal order by Article 11(1) of the Law of 8 March 2013 on Payment Terms in Commercial Transactions, be interpreted as meaning that an agreement that the debtor is to make periodic payments, also in the case where the contract is concluded for an indefinite term, is tantamount to the parties to a commercial transaction agreeing on a payment schedule providing for instalments?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
Case T-674/16: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Seigneur v ECB
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, pay rise, principle of legal certainty, promotion








C_2019139EN.01010801.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/108






Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Seigneur v ECB
(Case T-674/16) (1)

(2019/C 139/110)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Case T-836/17: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2019139EN.01005302.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/53






Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER)
(Case T-836/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 139/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sports Group Denmark A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: E. Skovbo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: K&L GmbH & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2017 (Case R 311/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between K&L and Sports Group Denmark.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no need to adjudicate.











2.



Sports Group Denmark A/S shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Case T-677/16: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Bowles v BCE
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bonus payment, damages, equal treatment, labour law, pay, pay rise, principle of legal certainty, promotion








C_2019139EN.01010802.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/108






Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Bowles v BCE
(Case T-677/16) (1)

(2019/C 139/111)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Case C-191/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2019 — OI v Air Nostrum Lineas Aereas del Mediterraneo SA
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2019206EN.01002201.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2019 — OI v Air Nostrum Lineas Aereas del Mediterraneo SA
(Case C-191/19)
(2019/C 206/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: OI

Defendant and respondent: Air Nostrum Lineas Aereas del Mediterraneo SA

Questions referred







1.


Does the change in reservation of a passenger at check-in, who has a confirmed reservation on a specific flight, to a later flight against his will constitute denied boarding within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, (1) if the flight on which the passenger had a confirmed reservation is then carried out?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation apply by analogy in the event of denied boarding within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Air Passenger Rights 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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, aircraft, economic concentration, engine, investment company, maintenance, merger control








C_2019089EN.01000102.xml










8.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9264 — The Carlyle Group/StandardAero)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 89/02)
On 27 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 32019M9264. 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.9200 — KKR/Magneti Marelli) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: after-sales service, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, supplier, vehicle parts








C_2019074EN.01001201.xml










27.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9200 — KKR/Magneti Marelli)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 74/05)

1.   
On 20 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:






—


KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, United States),










—


Magneti Marelli SpA (‘Magneti Marelli’, Italy).




KKR acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Magneti Marelli.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   KKR: a global investment firm, which offers a broad range of asset funds and other investment products to investors and provides capital markets solutions for the firm, its portfolio companies and other clients. KKR controls Calsonic Kansei Corporation, a Japan-based global supplier of auto parts, such as cockpit modules, interior products, climate control systems, engine cooling products, automotive compressors, exhaust systems and electronic products.
—   Magneti Marelli: a supplier of components and systems for the automotive sector, principally automotive lighting products, powertrains products, electronic systems, suspension systems and shock absorbers, exhaust systems, aftermarket parts and services and motorsport products.


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.9200 — KKR/Magneti Marelli
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9263 — Moma Lieux/Unibail-Rodamco/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: business lease, catering industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019074EN.01001001.xml










27.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9263 — Moma Lieux/Unibail-Rodamco/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 74/04)

1.   
On 19 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:






—


Moma Lieux SAS (‘Moma Lieux’, France), a member of the Moma Group;










—


Unibail-Rodamco SE (‘UR SE’, France), a member of the Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield Group.




Moma Lieux and UR SE acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly-created company whose purpose is to develop and operate food halls.
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:
—   for Moma Lieux: commercial catering and discothèques, chiefly in Paris;
—   for UR SE: management and leasing of commercial premises in shopping malls, office buildings and convention and exhibition centres.


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 on which this notification is published. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9263 — Moma Lieux/Unibail-Rodamco/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.
Case C-196/19 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2019 by UC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-572/17, UC v Parliament
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, damage, promotion, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2019295EN.01000302.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/3






Appeal brought on 27 February 2019 by UC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-572/17, UC v Parliament
(Case C-196/19 P)
(2019/C 295/05)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: UC (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
By order of 23 July 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
Case C-192/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 February 2019 — Rensen Shipbuilding BV, other party: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading, vessel








C_2019164EN.01002701.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 February 2019 — Rensen Shipbuilding BV, other party: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
(Case C-192/19)
(2019/C 164/29)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Rensen Shipbuilding BV

Other party: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Question referred

Additional note 1 to Chapter 89 of the Combined Nomenclature provides that (inter alia) the CN subheadings 89012010 and 89019010, entitled ‘Seagoing’, are to be taken to apply only to vessels that are designed as seagoing. What should be understood by the term ‘seagoing’ in this context?
Case T-401/18: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — SFIE-PE v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Interpreters’ strike — Measures requisitioning interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Measure not open to challenge — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: collective redress, indemnification, information profession, interpreting, operation of the Institutions, requisitioning of workers, strike








C_2019139EN.01005701.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/57






Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — SFIE-PE v Parliament
(Case T-401/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Interpreters’ strike - Measures requisitioning interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - Measure not open to challenge - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 139/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 263 and 268 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of 2 July 2018 of the Director General of Personnel of the Parliament requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 3 July 2018 and the subsequent decisions of the Director General of Personnel of the Parliament requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 4, 5,10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order that the Parliament make good the non-pecuniary harm caused by those decisions assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.











3.



The Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) shall pay the costs, including the costs of the interim proceedings, with the exception of those related to the application for leave to intervene made by the Council.











4.



The SFPI-PE, the European Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs of the application for leave to intervene made by the Council.







(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Case T-581/18: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — ND (*) and OE (*) v Commission (Action for annulment — Discrimination alleged against European officials and other national residents concerning the method of calculating the net remuneration determining the tariff of certain social benefits — Coordination of social security systems — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU national, European official, basis of tax assessment, equal treatment, servant (EU), tax on income, taxable income




C_2019139EN.01005801.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/58






Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 —  ND (*1) and  OE (*1) v Commission
(Case T-581/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Discrimination alleged against European officials and other national residents concerning the method of calculating the net remuneration determining the tariff of certain social benefits - Coordination of social security systems - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Failure to bring infringement proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 139/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ND (*1) and  OE (*1) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission letter of 27 July 2018, notified to the applicants on 30 July 2018, by which the Commission decided to take no further action on their complaint against the City of Luxembourg, the State of Luxembourg and the Administrative Court of Luxembourg.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible;











2.



 ND (*1) and  OE (*1) are ordered to pay the costs.







(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Case T-25/18: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — PAN Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents relating to endocrine-disrupting substances — Withdrawal of the decision refusing access — Disclosure after the action had been brought — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, chemical product, delegated regulation, drafting of EU law, endocrine disease, health risk, scientific report








C_2019139EN.01005401.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/54






Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — PAN Europe v Commission
(Case T-25/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents relating to endocrine-disrupting substances - Withdrawal of the decision refusing access - Disclosure after the action had been brought - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 139/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, I. Naglis and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7604 final of 9 November 2017, in so far as it refuses access to documents relating to endocrine-disrupting substances.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.











2.



The European Commission shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case C-193/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 27 February 2019 — A v Migrationsverket
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, Sweden, passport, residence permit








C_2019155EN.01003401.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 27 February 2019 — A v Migrationsverket
(Case C-193/19)
(2019/C 155/40)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Questions referred







1.


Do the provisions of the Schengen Convention, including, in particular, the provisions on the systematic consultation of the SIS and the Schengen Borders Code and including, in particular, the requirement to hold a valid passport laid down therein, constitute obstacles to the grant of residence permits on the basis of applications which were submitted in Sweden and which are not based on grounds of protection or humanitarian grounds, when the identity is unclear?










2.


If that is the case, can the exception on establishment of identity be governed by national law or by case-law?










3.


If the situation described in paragraph 2 above is not the case, what, if any, derogation is provided for in EU law?
Case T-783/16: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission
Date: 2019-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Gibraltar, State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, tax collection, tax law








C_2019139EN.01010901.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/109






Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission
(Case T-783/16) (1)

(2019/C 139/112)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.