do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9200 — KKR/Magneti Marelli) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: after-sales service, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, supplier, vehicle parts








C_2019111EN.01000201.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9200 — KKR/Magneti Marelli)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 111/03)
On 14 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 32019M9200. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2018/2025 of 17 December 2018 fixing for 2019 and 2020 the fishing opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ L 325, 20.12.2018)
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, deep-sea fishing, fishing area, international waters, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2019072EN.01014102.xml










14.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 72/141







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2018/2025 of 17 December 2018 fixing for 2019 and 2020 the fishing opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 325 of 20 December 2018
)


On page 17, in the table for red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo):
for:


                  ‘Zone: Union and international waters of 9 (1) (SBR/9-)’,

read:


                  ‘Zone: Union and international waters of 9 (1) (SBR/09-)’.
Case C-134/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) — Maria Vester v Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security systems — Invalidity benefits — Articles 45 and 48 TFEU — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Different benefit schemes in the Member States — ‘Primary period of incapacity to work’ — Duration — Benefits for incapacity for work — Disadvantages for migrant workers)
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disability insurance, free movement of workers, health insurance, incapacity for work, migrant worker, social-security harmonisation








C_2019155EN.01001301.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) — Maria Vester v Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering
(Case C-134/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security systems - Invalidity benefits - Articles 45 and 48 TFEU - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Different benefit schemes in the Member States - ‘Primary period of incapacity to work’ - Duration - Benefits for incapacity for work - Disadvantages for migrant workers)
(2019/C 155/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maria Vester

Defendant: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a worker who is unfit to work for one year and who has been granted invalidity status by the competent institution of the Member State of his residence, without being entitled to receive invalidity benefits on the basis of the law of that Member State, is required by the competent institution of the Member State in which he completed all his insurance periods to complete an additional one-year period of incapacity to work in order to be granted invalidity status and receive pro-rata invalidity benefits, without receiving any benefits for incapacity to work during that period.


(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019097EN.01000201.xml










14.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 97/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 March 2019
(2019/C 97/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1303 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,89 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4601 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85880 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5540 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1373 




ISK


Iceland króna


133,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7245 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,668 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2993 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7737 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1771 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6005 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5087 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8728 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6538 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5325 




KRW


South Korean won


1 279,12 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1987 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5818 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4175 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 091,85 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6224 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,572 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,0008 




THB


Thai baht


35,729 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3260 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8210 




INR


Indian rupee


78,6620 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-21/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Concept of ‘shape’ — Shape giving substantial value to the goods — Two-dimensional mark — Figurative mark also constituting a work for the purpose of copyright — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) — Regulation (EU) 2015/2424)
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, copyright, decorative item, paper, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2019155EN.01001201.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag
(Case C-21/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Concept of ‘shape’ - Shape giving substantial value to the goods - Two-dimensional mark - Figurative mark also constituting a work for the purpose of copyright - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424)
(2019/C 155/15)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin

Defendant: Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to marks registered before the entry into force of Regulation No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation 2015/2424.










2.


Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a sign such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of two-dimensional decorative motifs, which are affixed to goods, such as fabric or paper, does not ‘consist exclusively of the shape’, within the meaning of that provision.






(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Case C-449/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) and (j) — Exemption for certain activities in the public interest — School or university education — Concept — Driving school tuition provided by a driving school)
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, driving instruction, higher education, secondary education, services of general interest, tax exemption








C_2019155EN.01000701.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel
(Case C-449/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) and (j) - Exemption for certain activities in the public interest - School or university education - Concept - Driving school tuition provided by a driving school)
(2019/C 155/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘school or university education’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering motor vehicle driving tuition provided by a driving school, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for the purpose of acquiring driving licences for vehicles in categories B and C1 referred to in Article 4(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences.


(1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
Case T-167/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden/Commission
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, equal treatment, principle of proportionality








C_2019155EN.01005501.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/55






Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden/Commission
(Case T-167/19)
(2019/C 155/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Tempus Energy Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany), T Energy Sweden AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Derenne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision dated 7 February 2018 relating to the planned Polish Capacity Mechanism (SA.46100, C(2018) 601 final) (1);










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to initiate the formal investigation procedure following the notification of the planned Polish capacity mechanism, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2), together with the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The Commission had not succeeded in overcoming the doubts that it must have encountered during the preliminary examination phase and this affected the applicants’ procedural rights.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.






(1)  OJ 2018, C 462, p. 1


(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification), OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p.9.
Case T-164/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — AQ v eu-LISA
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: dismissal, indemnification, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019164EN.01005701.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/57






Action brought on 14 March 2019 — AQ v eu-LISA
(Case T-164/19)
(2019/C 164/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AQ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of eu-LISA of 8 May 2018 which terminates the applicant’s employment contract at eu-LISA without notice together with, in so far as necessary, the decision of eu-LISA of 4 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant 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, alleging a procedural irregularity and the violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 16 and 48 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power.
Case T-160/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — LTTE v Council
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, right to justice, rights of the defence, terrorism








C_2019155EN.01005402.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/54






Action brought on 14 March 2019 — LTTE v Council
(Case T-160/19)
(2019/C 155/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: A. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant.
In the alternative, the applicant submits that a lesser measure than continued placement on the EU List of Terrorist Organizations is warranted in this case.
The applicant additionally seeks an award of costs interest to be paid with interest by the Council and which will be specified at a later stage.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the latter cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. (2)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 TFEU.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since it infringes upon the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 amending and updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 (OJ L 6, 9.1.2019, p. 6).

(2)  Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93).
Case C-557/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v Y.Z., Z.Z., Y.Y. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 16(2)(a) — Article 17 — Withdrawal of the residence permit of a member of the family of a third-country national — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 9(1)(a) — Loss of that status — Fraud — Lack of knowledge of the fraud)
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family, family migration, foreign national, forgery of documents, fraud, residence permit








C_2019155EN.01000702.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v Y.Z., Z.Z., Y.Y.
(Case C-557/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 16(2)(a) - Article 17 - Withdrawal of the residence permit of a member of the family of a third-country national - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 9(1)(a) - Loss of that status - Fraud - Lack of knowledge of the fraud)
(2019/C 155/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendants: Y.Z., Z.Z., Y.Y.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 16(2)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that, where falsified documents were produced for the issuing of residence permits to family members of a third-country national, the fact that those family members did not know of the fraudulent nature of those documents does not preclude the Member State concerned, in application of that provision, from withdrawing those permits. In accordance with Article 17 of that directive, it is however for the competent national authorities to carry out, beforehand, a case-by-case assessment of the situation of those family members, by making a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the interests in play.










2.


Article 9(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, must be interpreted as meaning that, where long-term resident status has been granted to third-country nationals on the basis of falsified documents, the fact that those nationals did not know of the fraudulent nature of those documents does not preclude the Member State concerned, in application of that provision, from withdrawing that status.






(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case T-166/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Bronckers v Commission
Date: 2019-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Mexico, access to EU information, agreement (EU), mutual recognition principle, spirits, trade information








C_2019164EN.01005801.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/58






Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Bronckers v Commission
(Case T-166/19)
(2019/C 164/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marco Bronckers (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Commission of 10 January 2019 under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (1) rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents mentioned in the minutes of the Joint Committee on Spirit Drinks established under the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks; (2)











—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s rejection of the access request misapplies Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, and/or infringes Article 296 TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s rejection of the access request misapplies Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 and/or infringes Article 296 TFEU, as the Commission has not shown that access to all of the requested documents undermines commercial interests of the Consejo Regulador del Tequila (CRT) or its members.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly found that the applicant failed to show an overriding public interest in disclosure.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s rejection of partial access misapplies Article 4(6) and/or Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, and/or infringes Art. 296 TFEU.






(1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p.43).

(2)  See Council Decision of 27 May 1997 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (OJ 1997 L 152, p. 15).