do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-170/19: Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Sherpa Europe v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA NEXT)
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information network, micro-computer, registered trade mark, search engine, software, trade-mark law








C_2019155EN.01005701.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/57






Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Sherpa Europe v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA NEXT)
(Case T-170/19)
(2019/C 155/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sherpa Europe, SL (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Tres Cantos, 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 EU word mark SHERPA NEXT — Application for registration No 12 891 495

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in Case R 523/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, and the costs incurred in the appeal before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-252/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 20 March 2019 — QL S.A. in B. v C.G.
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, unfair terms of contract








C_2019280EN.01001801.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 20 March 2019 — QL S.A. in B. v C.G.
(Case C-252/19)
(2019/C 280/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QL S.A. in B.

Defendant: C.G.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (1) and in particular Article 3(g) and Article 22(1) of that directive, 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(6)(a) in conjunction with Article 36a of the Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim z dnia 12 maja 2011 r. (Law of 12 May 2011 on Consumer Credit, consolidated text: Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] 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 costs of the credit)?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 416/02
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019416EN.01000201.xml










11.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 416/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 416/02)
On 20 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32019M8948. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-239/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 20 March 2019 — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market approval, medicinal product, patent law








C_2019172EN.01002202.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/22






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 20 March 2019 — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.
(Case C-239/19)
(2019/C 172/26)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company

Defendant: Genentech Inc.

Question referred

Does the SPC Regulation (1) preclude the grant of an SPC to the proprietor of a basic patent in respect of a product which is the subject of a marketing authorisation held by a third party without that party's consent?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1).
Case C-245/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 March 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v B
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European tax cooperation, administrative cooperation, administrative procedure, appeal, exchange of information, jurisdiction, tax convention, tax law








C_2019213EN.01000801.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 March 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v B
(Case C-245/19)
(2019/C 213/08)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Respondent: B

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 47 of that Charter, be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State which, in the context of the procedure for the exchange of information on request established in particular with a view to the implementation of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, (1) excludes any remedy, in particular a judicial remedy, on the part of a third party holding information to challenge a decision by which the competent authority of that Member State requires that third party to communicate information to it for the purposes of implementing a request for exchange of information received from another Member State?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Directive 2011/16 be interpreted, if necessary taking account of the evolving nature of the interpretation of Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, as meaning that a request for exchange of information, and a consequent information order from the competent authority of the requested Member State, satisfy the condition that there is not a manifest lack of foreseeable relevance where the requesting Member State states the identity of the taxpayer concerned, the period covered by the investigation in the requesting Member State and the identity of the holder of the information in question, while seeking information concerning contracts and the associated invoices and payments which are unspecified but which are defined by criteria concerning, first, the fact that the contracts were concluded by the identified holder of the information, secondly, their applicability to the tax years covered by the investigation by the authorities in the requesting State and, thirdly, their relationship with the identified taxpayer concerned?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1.
Case T-171/19: Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, code of conduct, damages, duties of civil servants, equal treatment, indemnification, interest, pay, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019172EN.01003901.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/39






Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS
(Case T-171/19)
(2019/C 172/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare Ms Hebberecht’s application admissible and well founded;










—


annul the penalty imposed on the applicant;










—


order the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the applicant EUR 36 000 in respect of arrears of salary and default interest;










—


order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 450 000 as compensation for injury to her health, material and non-material damage;










—


in the alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 300 000 as compensation for those damages;










—


in the further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 150 000 as compensation for those damages;










—


in the still further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 as compensation for those damages;










—


order the EEAS to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the findings made against her by the tribunal de première instance du Hainaut (Court of First Instance, Hainaut, Belgium) in its judgment of 13 December 2017, relied on by the EEAS as constituting a particularly serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials, inter alia under Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, are incorrect. She also claims that the penalties imposed on her are discriminatory.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9286 – SEGRO / PSPIB / WROCLAW SITE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 278/01
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, industrial building, investment company, light industry, logistics, merger control, real estate business, storage








C_2022278EN.01000101.xml










20.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9286 – SEGRO / PSPIB / WROCLAW SITE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 278/01)
On 20 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 policy’ 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 32019M9286. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019106EN.01001101.xml










20.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/11






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 March 2019
(2019/C 106/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1358 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,59 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4624 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85548 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4485 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1353 




ISK


Iceland króna


132,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6745 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,604 




HUF


Hungarian forint


313,22 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2879 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7585 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2191 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5986 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5060 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9161 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6535 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5342 




KRW


South Korean won


1 283,15 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3726 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6237 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4168 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 099,97 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6232 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,029 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1062 




THB


Thai baht


35,982 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2878 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5793 




INR


Indian rupee


78,3510 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-760/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2019 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Triotherm+ — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Right to be heard)
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, architecture, bolt and screw industry, building insulation, building materials, consultancy, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019155EN.01004101.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/41






Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2019 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+)
(Case T-760/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Triotherm+ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard)
(2019/C 155/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Meesenburg Großhandel KG (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Freiherr von Oldershausen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 (Case R 1786/2016-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Triotherm+ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action.











2.



Orders Meesenburg Großhandel KG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 20 March 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40436 — Ancillary Sports Merchandise — Rapporteur: Slovakia (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, gift item, intellectual property, professional sport, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), sports body, trade licence








C_2019216EN.01000401.xml










27.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/4






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 20 March 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40436 — Ancillary Sports Merchandise
Rapporteur: Slovakia
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 216/03)

1.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision as regards the duration of the infringement.



3.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.



4.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



5.   

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/470 of 20 March 2019 repealing Decision 2005/779/EC concerning animal health protection measures against swine vesicular disease in Italy (notified under document C(2019) 2045) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: Calabria, Italy, animal disease, swine, veterinary inspection








L_2019080EN.01004901.xml










22.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 80/49








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2019/470
of 20 March 2019
         
repealing Decision 2005/779/EC concerning animal health protection measures against swine vesicular disease in Italy


(notified under document C(2019) 2045)


(Text with EEA relevance)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary checks applicable in intra-Union trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Decision 2005/779/EC (2) was adopted following outbreaks of swine vesicular disease in Italy. It lays down animal health rules as regards swine vesicular disease for the regions of that Member State that are recognised as free from swine vesicular disease, and also for those regions of that Member State that are not recognised as free from that disease.












(2)


A programme for the eradication and monitoring of swine vesicular disease has been implemented in Italy for several years, with a view to achieving swine vesicular disease-free status for all regions of that Member State.












(3)


Italy has submitted new information to the Commission as regards the swine vesicular disease-free status of the region of Calabria, demonstrating that the disease has been eradicated from that region.












(4)


Following examination of the information submitted by Italy, and given the favourable results emanating from the implementation of the eradication and monitoring programme, the region of Calabria should be recognised as free from swine vesicular disease.












(5)


Since swine vesicular disease has now been eradicated in all regions of Italy, Decision 2005/779/EC has become obsolete and should be repealed.












(6)


The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2005/779/EC is repealed.


Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.




Done at Brussels, 20 March 2019.


For the Commission

Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

(2)  Commission Decision 2005/779/EC of 8 November 2005 concerning animal health protection measures against swine vesicular disease in Italy (OJ L 293, 9.11.2005, p. 28).
Case C-246/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 March 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v B, C, D, F.C.
Date: 2019-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European tax cooperation, administrative cooperation, administrative procedure, appeal, exchange of information, jurisdiction, tax convention, tax law








C_2019213EN.01000901.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 March 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v B, C, D, F.C.
(Case C-246/19)
(2019/C 213/09)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Respondents: B, C, D, F.C.

Other party: A

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 47 of that Charter, be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State which, in the context of the procedure for the exchange of information on request established in particular with a view to the implementation of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/99/EEC, (1) excludes any remedy, in particular a judicial remedy, on the part of the taxpayer concerned by the investigation in the requesting Member State and a third party to challenge a decision by which the competent authority of that Member State requires a holder of information to communicate information to it for the purposes of implementing a request for exchange of information received from another Member State?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Directive 2011/16 be interpreted, if necessary taking account of the evolving nature of the interpretation of Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, as meaning that a request for exchange of information, and a consequent information order from the competent authority of the requested Member State, satisfy the condition that there is not a manifest lack of foreseeable relevance where the requesting Member State states the identity of the taxpayer concerned, the period covered by the investigation in the requesting Member State and the identity of the holder of the information in question, while seeking information concerning bank accounts and financial assets which are unspecified but which are defined by criteria concerning, first, the fact that they are owned by an identified holder of information, secondly, their applicability to the tax years covered by the investigation by the authorities in the requesting State and, thirdly, their relationship with the identified taxpayer concerned?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1.