do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9280 — DXC Technology Company/Luxoft Holding, Inc.) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services








C_2019085EN.01000501.xml










7.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9280 — DXC Technology Company/Luxoft Holding, Inc.)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 85/05)

1.   
On 1 March 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:






—


DXC Technology Company (‘DXC’, USA), and










—


Luxoft Holding, Inc. (‘Luxoft’, Switzerland).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


DXC offers end-to-end IT services to private and public sector clients from a diverse array of industries,










—


Luxoft offers strategic consulting, custom software development services and digital solution engineering to clients in a number of industries.






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.9280 — DXC Technology Company/Luxoft Holding, Inc.
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 T-106/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark VERA GREEN — Earlier EU word mark LAVERA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, paper, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2019148EN.01005101.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/51






Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)
(Case T-106/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VERA GREEN - Earlier EU word mark LAVERA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 148/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented initially by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, then by N. Schmitz and J. Bittner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Agroecopark, SL (Majadahonda, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and C. Serrano Rodríguez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 (Case R 982/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Laverana and Agroecopark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Case T-145/19: Action brought on 7 March 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2019155EN.01004702.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/47






Action brought on 7 March 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission
(Case T-145/19)
(2019/C 155/57)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: G. Alabau Zabal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the act adopted by the European Commission setting the amount to be repaid by the applicant due to the reduction of funding in Programme LIFE 11.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the act of the European Commission of 14 January 2019, notified on 24 January 2019, setting the amount which the applicant must repay due to the reduction of funding in Programme LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING, and making an order for payment.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement.






—


In that regard, the applicant submits that the European Commission did not present any arguments or data enabling the applicant to counter its arguments beyond the content of the initial letter of January 2017, in which the applicant was informed of the expenses which were not eligible for funding, given that, in all its communications, the Commission merely reproduced the same arguments.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty or any legal rule relating to its application.






—


In that regard, the applicant submits that acts which limit subjective rights or legitimate interests must state the reasons on which they are based, in accordance with EU law, given that, otherwise, there may be arbitrary conduct in favour of the party adopting the act, and there may be an abuse of power, which would be contrary to the principles of proportionality, legitimate expectation, equal treatment and ‘prohibition of arbitrariness’ laid down in EU law.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence






—


In that regard, the applicant submits that there is a lack of justification for the act, as no solid administrative criteria have been stated for declaring certain costs ineligible and, consequently, it is not possible to challenge them.
Agreement on the European Economic Area, Chapter V (4) of Annex II, Section 6 (b) of Protocol 1 on horizontal adaptations — Types of gas and the corresponding supply pressures according to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/426 of the European Parliament and of the Council on appliances burning gaseous fuels and repealing Directive 2009/142/EC (This publication is based on information received by the Commission from Norway)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norway, gas, gas appliance, gas supply, pressure equipment, safety standard, technical standard




C_2019088EN.01000101.xml










7.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/1






Agreement on the European Economic Area, Chapter V (4) of Annex II, Section 6 (b) of Protocol 1 on horizontal adaptations
Types of gas and the corresponding supply pressures according to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/426 of the European Parliament and of the Council on appliances burning gaseous fuels and repealing Directive 2009/142/EC

(This publication is based on information received by the Commission from Norway)

(2019/C 88/01)
NORWAY













Gas Family


2nd Family


3rd Family




Gas Group


Group H


Group B/P




 


minimum


maximum


minimum


maximum




Gross Calorific Value (GCV) [MJ/m3]


—


—


—


—




Wobbe index [MJ/m3]


48,3


52,8


81,7 (commercial)
(min 73,735)


92,7 (commercial)
(max 80,45)




Gas composition by volume in % of the total content:




 


minimum


maximum


minimum


maximum




C1 Methane


75


95


 


0,1




C2 Ethane


5


10


 


2




C3 Propane (1)



0


4


95


98




C4 Butane (2)



0


2


—


5




C5 1,3 Butadiene


 


 


 


0,09 weight %




N2 + CO2 content


 


traces




CO content


 


traces




Unsaturated HC content (3)



 


 


—


1 mol %




Hydrogen content


 


traces




Information on toxic components contained in the gaseous fuel:





 


not known


not known




Supply pressure:




 


minimum


nominal


maximum


minimum


nominal


maximum




Supply pressure at the inlet of appliances [mbar]


17


20


25


25


30


37




Reference conditions for Wobbe index and Gross Calorific Value (GCV)





Combustion reference temperature [°C]


15 °C


0 °C




Volume measurement reference temperature [°C]


15 °C


0 °C




Volume measurement reference pressure [mbar]


1,013 bar






(1)  Commercial Propane.

(2)  Commercial Butane.

(3)  EN 589 refers to max 0,5 mol % for total Dienes content.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019085EN.01000101.xml










7.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 March 2019
(2019/C 85/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1305 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,40 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4609 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85970 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5375 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1360 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8040 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,592 




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,51 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2996 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7463 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1247 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6072 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5128 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8743 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6679 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5349 




KRW


South Korean won


1 275,05 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0583 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5857 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4210 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 999,40 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6289 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,083 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,4208 




THB


Thai baht


36,012 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2682 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7999 




INR


Indian rupee


79,4320 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-643/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Suez II Water Technologies & Solutions Portugal, Unipessoal Lda, formerly GE Power Controls Portugal Unipessoal, Lda v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 37 — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 313 — Customs status of goods — Presumption of the Community status of goods)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, customs territory (EU), customs union, free circulation, import (EU), originating product, third country








C_2019148EN.01000401.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/4






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Suez II Water Technologies & Solutions Portugal, Unipessoal Lda, formerly GE Power Controls Portugal Unipessoal, Lda v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-643/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 37 - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 313 - Customs status of goods - Presumption of the Community status of goods)
(2019/C 148/04)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Suez II Water Technologies & Solutions Portugal, Unipessoal Lda, formerly GE Power Controls Portugal Unipessoal, Lda

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Article 313 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 75/98 of 12 January 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, supplied and invoiced by companies established in third countries to a company established in the customs territory of the European Union in order to be used there, must be regarded as having been brought into that territory within the meaning of Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and to be covered, in that regard, by the exception provided for in Article 313(2)(a) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 75/98, as only goods in respect of which it has been proven that a procedure for releasing them for free circulation in the customs territory of the European Union has been carried out are to be recognised as having Community status.


(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9281 — American Securities/Belfor Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, economic reconstruction, investment company, maintenance, merger control, waste management








C_2019102EN.01000201.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9281 — American Securities/Belfor Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 102/03)
On 7 March 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 32019M9281. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-144/19: Action brought on 7 March 2019 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2019139EN.01010701.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/107






Action brought on 7 March 2019 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON)
(Case T-144/19)
(2019/C 139/109)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Kludi GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: A. Zafar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG (Düren, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ADLON — Application for registration No 11 115 961

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 in Case R 1500/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of the principle that the subject matter of an action is defined by the parties.
Case T-59/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — L v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistant — Termination of the contract — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Outside activity — Manifest error of assessment — Claim for damages)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, dismissal, servant (EU)








C_2019148EN.01004701.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/47






Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — L v Parliament
(Case T-59/17) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistant - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Outside activity - Manifest error of assessment - Claim for damages)
(2019/C 148/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, Agents)

Re:

Concerning, first, an application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 24 June 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract of employment as an accredited parliamentary assistant and, secondly, an application for damages for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the Parliament’s decision of 24 June 2016 to terminate L’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8870 — E.ON/Innogy) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy supply, energy transport, merger control, retail trade, supply chain, wholesale trade








C_2019102EN.01000202.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8870 — E.ON/Innogy)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 102/04)
On 7 March 2019, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No M.8870 — E.ON/Innogy, to the following 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’).
Case C-689/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron — Greece) — XT v Elliniko Dimosio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Internal taxation — Prohibition of discriminatory taxation — Luxury tax — Motor vehicles — Exemption from tax depending on the date on which the goods first entered into service in the taxing Member State — No account taken of the date on which the goods first entered into service in another Member State)
Date: 2019-03-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge having equivalent effect, free circulation, import (EU), import tax, indirect tax, motor car, tax exemption, wealth tax








C_2019172EN.01000502.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/5






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron — Greece) — XT v Elliniko Dimosio
(Case C-689/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Internal taxation - Prohibition of discriminatory taxation - Luxury tax - Motor vehicles - Exemption from tax depending on the date on which the goods first entered into service in the taxing Member State - No account taken of the date on which the goods first entered into service in another Member State)
(2019/C 172/06)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XT

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Operative part of the order

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which any owner or keeper of a private car with a large cylinder capacity, the age of which, calculated as from the date on which it first entered into service in that Member State and irrespective of any possible prior entry into service in another Member State, is more than ten years, is exempt from luxury tax.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.