do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1497 of 8 October 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards food category 17 and the use of food additives in food supplements (OJ L 253, 9.10.2018)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: consumer protection, food additive, food safety, food supplement, foodstuff, market approval








L_2019060EN.01003501.xml










28.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 60/35







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1497 of 8 October 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards food category 17 and the use of food additives in food supplements

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 253 of 9 October 2018
)


On page 44, in the Annex, in the amendments to Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 after point 2(c), the following omission is corrected:
for:











 


‘E 969


Advantame


55


 


only food supplements in syrup form’





read:











 


‘E 969


Advantame


55


 


only food supplements in syrup form










(d)


the entry for food subcategory 17.3 is deleted.’
Case C-278/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption — Article 13B(b) — Leasing or letting of immovable property — Meaning — Contract for the transfer of the use of land comprising vineyards for agricultural purposes)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, agricultural land, property leasing, tax exemption, tenant farming, vineyard








C_2019139EN.01002001.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/20






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-278/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption - Article 13B(b) - Leasing or letting of immovable property - Meaning - Contract for the transfer of the use of land comprising vineyards for agricultural purposes)
(2019/C 139/19)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax on the leasing or letting of immovable property provided for in that provision is applicable to a contract for transfer of the use of land comprising vineyards for agricultural purposes to a company engaged in viticulture, entered into for a period of one year, automatically renewable and under which rent is paid at the end of each year


(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case C-198/19 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2019 by Teva UK Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-679/14: Teva UK Ltd and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cardiovascular disease, cartel, competition law, exclusive purchasing agreement, medicinal product, patent law, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2019164EN.01002901.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/29






Appeal brought on 28 February 2019 by Teva UK Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-679/14: Teva UK Ltd and Others v Commission
(Case C-198/19 P)
(2019/C 164/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Teva UK Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (represented by: D. Tayar, avocat, A. Richard, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Generic medicines Association AISBL (EGA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


accept the appeal and declare the action admissible;










—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 in case T-679/14;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision to be taken, unless the Court considers that it is sufficiently well informed to annul Commission Decision COMP/AT.39612 (1)‘Perindopril (Servier)’ of 9 July 2014insofar as it finds that Teva UK limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited infringed Article 101 of the TFEU and cancel the fine imposed Teva UK limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs incurred by the appellants before this Court and before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants put forward three pleas in law to support their request:






1.


The General Court erred in law in the standard applied to assess whether Teva was a potential competitor to Servier.










2.


The General Court erred in law in finding that the agreement was restrictive of competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU.










3.


The General Court erred in law in its application of Article 101(3) TFEU.






(1)  Summary of Commission Decision of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)) (notified under document C(2014) 4955) (JO 2016 C 393, p. 7).
Case C-195/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 28 February 2019 — PJ v QK
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, corruption, judicial investigation, judicial reform, jurisdiction, public prosecutor's department, transitional justice








C_2019187EN.01004001.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/40






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 28 February 2019 — PJ v QK
(Case C-195/19)
(2019/C 187/44)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PJ

Defendant: QK

Questions referred







1.


Are the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) and the requirements laid down in the reports prepared in the context of that mechanism binding on Romania?










2.


Do Article 67(1) TFEU and both the first sentence of Article 2 TEU and the first sentence of Article 9 TEU preclude national legislation establishing a section of the prosecution office which has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate any type of offence committed by judges or prosecutors?










3.


Does the principle of the primacy of European law, as enshrined in the judgment of 15 July 1964, Costa, 6/64, EU:C:1964:66, and by subsequent settled case-law of the Court of Justice, preclude national legislation which allows a politico-judicial institution, such as the Curtea Constituțională a României (Romanian Constitutional Court), to infringe the aforementioned principle by means of decisions which are not open to appeal?






(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).
Case T-133/19: Action brought on 28 February 2019 — Off-White v EUIPO (OFF-WHITE)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, cosmetic product, furniture industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019139EN.01010501.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/105






Action brought on 28 February 2019 — Off-White v EUIPO (OFF-WHITE)
(Case T-133/19)
(2019/C 139/107)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Off-White LLC (Springfield, Illinois, United States) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark OFF-WHITE — Application for registration No 17 360 009

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 in Case R 580/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in any event, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred OFF-WHITE LLC before the present Court and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


The contested decision did not take into account previous practice and violates the legal principles of sound administration, legal certainty and equal treatment.










—


Infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-414/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2019139EN.01004302.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/43






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council
(Case T-414/16) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)
(2019/C 139/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Drex Technologies SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union







(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Case T-460/18: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Public procurement — Set-off of claims — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Internet, claim, eligibility criteria, financial aid, information security, management accounting, telecommunications, trans-European network








C_2019139EN.01005702.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/57






Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission
(Case T-460/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public procurement - Set-off of claims - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 139/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Verheecke, J. Estrada de Solà and F. van den Berghe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 22 June 2018 seeking to recover the sum of EUR 229 711.16 by way of set-off of the payment to be made by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to the applicant against a claim of the Commission in respect of eSlovensko.

Operative part of the order







1.



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











2.



Each party shall bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.