do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-326/18: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2019 — Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES — Earlier national figurative mark Carajillo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law, wholesale selling








C_2019148EN.01005301.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/53






Order of the General Court of 8 March 2019 — Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)
(Case T-326/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES - Earlier national figurative mark Carajillo - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2019/C 148/51)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: José-Ramón Herrero Torres (Castellón de la Plana, Spain) (represented by: J. Gil Martí, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O'Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: DZ Licores, SLU (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and B. Lamas Begué, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2018 (Case R 2104/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Herrero Torres and DZ Licores.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Mr José-Ramón Herrero Torres shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case C-704/17: Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — D. H. v Ministerstvo vnitra
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative court, admission of aliens, detention before trial, foreign national, judicial review, right to justice








C_2019220EN.01002801.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/28






Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — D. H. v Ministerstvo vnitra
(Case C-704/17) (1)

(2019/C 220/34)
Language of the case: Czech
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
Case T-156/18: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2019 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament (Action for failure to act — Institutional law — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Article 130 — Annex II — Question for written answer — Request that the question be forwarded to the Council — Notification of the decision finding the question inadmissible — Invitation to act — Position of the Parliament — Application for an injunction — Inadmissible)
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Member of the European Parliament, infringement of EU law, parliamentary rules of procedure, written question








C_2019155EN.01004401.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/44






Order of the General Court of 8 March 2019 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament
(Case T-156/18) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Institutional law - Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Article 130 - Annex II - Question for written answer - Request that the question be forwarded to the Council - Notification of the decision finding the question inadmissible - Invitation to act - Position of the Parliament - Application for an injunction - Inadmissible)
(2019/C 155/53)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicants: Ryszard Antoni Legutko (Morawica, Poland) and Tomasz Piotr Poręba (Mielec, Poland) (represented by: M. Mataczyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, S. Alonso de León and A. Pospíšilová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully failed to forward Question for written answer P-003358/17 to the Council of the European Union, in breach of Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament and the provisions of Annex II thereto.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible;











2.



Mr Ryszard Antoni Legutko and Mr Tomasz Piotr Poręba are ordered to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Case C-217/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, conservation of resources, hunting, hunting regulations, infringement procedure (EU), protection of animals, Åland








C_2019172EN.01002001.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/20






Action brought on 8 March 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
(Case C-217/19)
(2019/C 172/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, E. Ljung Rasmussen, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


declare that by recurrently granting authorizations for spring hunting of male Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland since 2011, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) and 9(l)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC (1) of the European parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;










—


order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Since 2011, the regional government of the Åland Islands, an autonomous region in Finland, has recurrently each year authorized ‘derogation spring hunting’ of male Common Eider ducks with a total quota of 2000 to 3800 birds during two to three weeks in May. This time period coincides with the period of reproduction of Common Eiders.
Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC prohibits hunting during the period of reproduction.
Finland claims that the spring hunting of Common Eiders in the Åland Islands is justified by the derogation provision of Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC. According to the case-law of the Court, Member States bear the burden of proof for establishing that the conditions of this provision are met.
The Commission considers that Finland, first, has not established that the derogation regime constitutes ‘judicious use’ within the meaning of Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC. Finland has, in particular, not substantiated with sound scientific evidence that it is ensured that the relevant population of Common Eider ducks is maintained at a satisfactory level.
Secondly, Finland has not demonstrated that the authorized spring hunting only concerns the use of birds ‘in small numbers’ pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC.


(1)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010, L 20, p-7)
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019089EN.01001001.xml










8.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/10






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 March 2019
(2019/C 89/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1271 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,97 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4610 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85880 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5625 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1355 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7860 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,610 




HUF


Hungarian forint


315,36 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2991 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7415 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1171 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6014 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5131 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8476 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6631 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5308 




KRW


South Korean won


1 273,15 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1514 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5622 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4158 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 990,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6065 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,923 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,3115 




THB


Thai baht


35,819 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3234 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8244 




INR


Indian rupee


78,8840 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Modification of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: The Member States
Subjects: France, Grand Est, cross-border cooperation, economic and social cohesion, local authority, regional authority, regional cooperation, regional development








C_2019089EN.01001201.xml










8.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/12






Modification of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)
(2019/C 89/06)
I.   Name of the EGTC, address and contact point


Official name: Eurodistrict PAMINA (PAMINA Eurodistrict)

Registered office: 2, Rue du Général Mittelhauser, 67630 Lauterbourg, France
Contact: Patrice Harster, Director-General for Services

Email: patrice.harster@bas-rhin.fr

Grouping website: www.eurometropolis.eu
II.   New members


Official name: Communauté de Communes du Pays rhénan (Community of Municipalities of the Pays rhénans)

Address: 32, Rue du Général de Gaulle, 67410 Drusenheim
Website: www.cc-paysrhenan.fr

Country: France

Official name: Communauté de Communes du Pays de Wissembourg (Community of Municipalities of Wissembourg)

Address: 4, Quai du 24 Novembre — BP 80023, 67161 Wissembourg Cedex
Website: www.cc-pays-wissembourg.fr

Country: France

Official name: Communauté de communes de l’Outre Forêt (Community of Municipalities of the Outre Forêt)

Address: 4, Rue de l’Ecole, 67250 Hohwiller
Website: www.cc-outreforet.fr

Country: France

Official name: Communauté de Communes Sauer-Pechelbronn (Community of Municipalities of Sauer-Pechelbronn)

Address: 1, Rue Obermatt, 67360 Durrenbach
Website: www.sauer-pechelbronn.fr

Country: France
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9267 — KKR/Telepizza) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2019097EN.01000101.xml










14.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 97/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9267 — KKR/Telepizza)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 97/01)
On 8 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 32019M9267. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-215/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, computer centre, computer equipment, establishment, property leasing, provision of services, tax law








C_2019164EN.01003901.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/39






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö
(Case C-215/19)
(2019/C 164/41)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Other party: A Oy

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 13b and 31a of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 (1) of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC (2) on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1042/2013 (3) of 7 October 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 as regards the place of supply of services, to be interpreted as meaning that computing centre services of the type at issue in the main proceedings, with which a trader provides its customers with equipment cabinets in a computing centre for holding customers’ servers together with ancillary services, are to be regarded as the leasing or letting of immovable property?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, are Article 47 of VAT Directive 2006/112/EC and Article 31a of the aforementioned Implementing Regulation nevertheless to be interpreted as meaning that a computing centre service of the type at issue in the main proceedings is to be regarded as a service connected with immovable property, the place of supply of which is the location of the property?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2013 L 284, p. 1.
Case T-157/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, legal person, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence, terrorism, trade restriction








C_2019172EN.01003602.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/36






Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council
(Case T-157/19)
(2019/C 172/50)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Dalokay Șanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.










2.


Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts.










3.


Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities.










4.


Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him.










5.


Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking.










6.


Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_2019089EN.01001101.xml










8.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/11






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 89/05)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised uses


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 1577


1 March 2019


1,2-dichloroethane
EC No 203-458-1;
CAS No 107-06-2


OLON Spa, Strada Rivoltana Km 6/7, 20090, Rodano, Milano, Italy


REACH/19/1/0


Use as a solvent in the manufacturing of the active pharmaceutical ingredient epirubicin.


22 November 2029


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant before the sunset date.




REACH/19/1/1


Use as a solvent in the manufacturing of the active pharmaceutical ingredient prednisolone steaglate.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case T-149/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Jumbo Africa (Device of a human figure centered over an escutcheon)
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereals, foodstuff, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019155EN.01004801.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/48






Action brought on 8 March 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Jumbo Africa (Device of a human figure centered over an escutcheon)
(Case T-149/19)
(2019/C 155/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jumbo Africa, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark representing a human figure centered over an escutcheon in colours red, blue, light blue, dark blue, grey and white — Application for registration No 15 273 634

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2018 in Case R 876/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No. B 2 738 030;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener to pay the costs before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 91(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-222/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R.
Date: 2019-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, unfair terms of contract








C_2019280EN.01001701.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R.
(Case C-222/19)
(2019/C 280/23)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B.

Defendant: D.R.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 3(1) of that directive, and the principles of EU law concerning consumer protection and the balance between contracting parties be interpreted as precluding the introduction into national law of the concept of ‘maximum non-interest credit costs’ and the mathematical formula for calculating those costs set out in Article 5(6a), in conjunction with Article 36a, of the Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim (Law on Consumer Credit) of 12 May 2011 (consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw of 2018, item 993), which allow the costs of the business activity of a seller or supplier to be included in the costs related to a credit agreement that are to be borne by the consumer (the total cost of the credit)?


(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.