do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-637/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cogeco Communications Inc. v Sport TV Portugal SA, Controlinveste-SGPS SA, NOS-SGPS SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 102 TFEU — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Directive 2014/104/EU — Article 9(1) — Article 10(2) to (4) — Articles 21 and 22 — Actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union — Effects of national decisions — Limitation periods — Transposition — Temporal application)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Canada, Portugal, civil proceedings, competition law, damages, infringement of EU law, limitation of legal proceedings, national implementing measure, national law, public limited company








C_2019187EN.01002102.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/21






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cogeco Communications Inc. v Sport TV Portugal SA, Controlinveste-SGPS SA, NOS-SGPS SA
(Case C-637/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 102 TFEU - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Directive 2014/104/EU - Article 9(1) - Article 10(2) to (4) - Articles 21 and 22 - Actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union - Effects of national decisions - Limitation periods - Transposition - Temporal application)
(2019/C 187/24)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cogeco Communications Inc.

Defendants: Sport TV Portugal SA, Controlinveste-SGPS SA, NOS-SGPS SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 22 of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.










2.


Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, first, provides that the limitation period in respect of actions for damages is three years and starts to run from the date on which the injured party was aware of its right to compensation, even if unaware of the identity of the person liable and, secondly, does not include any possibility of suspending or interrupting that period during proceedings before the national competition authority.






(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Case C-271/19 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2019 by WB against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2019 in Case T-329/18 WB v Commission
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, admissibility, corruption, cruel and degrading treatment, judicial reform








C_2020027EN.01001001.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/10






Appeal brought on 28 March 2019 by WB against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2019 in Case T-329/18 WB v Commission
(Case C-271/19 P)
(2020/C 27/12)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Appellant: WB (represented by: N. Ciocea, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 3 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/537 of 28 March 2019 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) (PDO))
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, Burgas region, designation of origin, honey, labelling, product designation








L_2019093EN.01000101.xml










2.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 93/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/537
of 28 March 2019
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application submitted by Bulgaria to register the name ‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) as a protected designation of origin has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) (PDO) is registered.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.4. Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 March 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 449, 13.12.2018, p. 11.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
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: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: ceramics, chemical compound, electronic component, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2019116EN.01000201.xml










28.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 116/2






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 116/02)

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) 2092


21 March 2019


dibutyl phthalate
EC No 201-557-4,
CAS No 84-74-2


AVX Limited, Prospect House, 6 Archipelago Lyon Way, GU16 7ER, Frimley, Surrey, United Kingdom


REACH/19/15/0


Industrial use of dibutyl phthalate in the manufacture of ceramic sheets for the production of multi-layer ceramic capacitors


7 years from date of the Decision








—


Risk is adequately controlled in accordance with Article 60(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.










—


There are no suitable alternatives at present.










(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-182/19: Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019172EN.01004201.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/42






Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)
(Case T-182/19)
(2019/C 172/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Application for registration No 17 363 318

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2019 in Case R 1399/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-829/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of two oblique red curves) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing two oblique red curves — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business administration, business management, maintenance, mechanical engineering, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019164EN.01004601.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/46






Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of two oblique red curves)
(Case T-829/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two oblique red curves - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2019/C 164/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2017 (Case R 1272/2017-5), regarding an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two oblique red curves as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Coesia SpA to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








L_2019086EN.01011802.xml










28.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 86/118







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 64 of 5 March 2019
)


On page 8, in the Annex, point (2), new section B (Rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection), under the subheading ‘Application of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of each of the listed persons’, entry 2:
for:







‘2.


Vitalli Yuriyovych Zakharchenko
…’,





read:







‘2.


Vitalii Yuriyovych Zakharchenko
…’.
Case C-144/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 March 2019 — River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd v Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD), Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand — Interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Thailand, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), maize, originating product, preserved product








C_2019187EN.01002701.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/27






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 March 2019 — River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd v Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD), Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-144/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand - Interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)
(2019/C 187/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) (represented by: A. Willems and C. Zimmermann, avocats, and by S. De Knop, advocaat), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) and by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9306 — ENGIE/CDPQ/TAG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy industry, gas industry, gas pipeline, gas supply, investment company, merger control








C_2019116EN.01000301.xml










28.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 116/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9306 — ENGIE/CDPQ/TAG)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 116/03)

1.   
On 21 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:






—


ENGIE S.A. (‘ENGIE’, France),










—


Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec — (‘CDPQ’, Canada),










—


Transportadora Associada de Gás S.A — (‘TAG’, Brazil)




ENGIE and CDPQ acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of TAG.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for ENGIE: a French global energy company active throughout the energy-value chain in the fields of gas and electricity supply, as well as energy services,
—   for CDPQ: a globally active Canadian long-term institutional investor managing funds primarily for public and para-public pension and insurance plans. It holds investments in financial markets, private equity, infrastructure and real estate,
—   for TAG: a Brazilian-based company which operates and manages a natural gas pipeline located in the North and Northeastern regions of Brazil.


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.9306 — ENGIE/CDPQ/TAG
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 C-275/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Milan Vinš v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 131 and Article 146(1)(a) — Exemption for supplies of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the European Union — Condition of exemption laid down by national law — Placing of goods under a particular customs procedure — Proof of placing of goods under the export procedure)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, export, export customs procedure, tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax exemption








C_2019187EN.01002901.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/29






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Milan Vinš v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-275/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 131 and Article 146(1)(a) - Exemption for supplies of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the European Union - Condition of exemption laid down by national law - Placing of goods under a particular customs procedure - Proof of placing of goods under the export procedure)
(2019/C 187/33)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Milan Vinš

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 146(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national legislative provision from making the exemption from value added tax for goods intended to be exported outside the European Union conditional on the goods being placed under the export customs procedure, in a situation in which it is established that the substantive conditions of exemption, in particular the condition that the goods concerned actually leave the territory of the European Union, are satisfied


(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Case C-270/19 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2019 by WB against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2019 in Case T-579/18 WB v Commission
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, abuse of power, admissibility, corruption, judicial reform, trafficking in human beings








C_2020027EN.01000902.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/9






Appeal brought on 28 March 2019 by WB against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2019 in Case T-579/18 WB v Commission
(Case C-270/19 P)
(2020/C 27/11)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Appellant: WB (represented by: N. Ciocea, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 3 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








L_2019086EN.01011801.xml










28.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 86/118







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 64 of 5 March 2019
)


On page 2, in the Annex, point (2), new section B (Rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection), under the subheading ‘Application of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of each of the listed persons’, entry 2:
for:







‘2.


Vitalli Yuriyovych Zakharchenko
…’,





read:







‘2.


Vitalii Yuriyovych Zakharchenko
…’.