do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-60/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Tallinna Vesi AS v Keskkonnaamet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Directive 2008/98/EC — Re-use and recovery of waste — Specific end-of-waste criteria for sewage sludge which has undergone recovery treatment — No defined criteria at European Union or national level)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, sewage sludge, waste recycling, water treatment








C_2019187EN.01002401.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/24






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Tallinna Vesi AS v Keskkonnaamet
(Case C-60/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Re-use and recovery of waste - Specific end-of-waste criteria for sewage sludge which has undergone recovery treatment - No defined criteria at European Union or national level)
(2019/C 187/27)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tallinna Vesi AS

Defendant: Keskkonnaamet

intervener: Keskkonnaministeerium

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where criteria have not been set at European Union level for determining end-of-waste status as regards a specific type of waste, such end status depends on the existence of criteria laid down in a generally applicable national legal act concerning that type of waste, and










—


it does not allow a waste holder, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to demand the recognition of end of waste status by the competent authority of the Member State or by a court of that Member State.






(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Action brought on 28 March 2019 by the County of Aust-Agder against Konkurrenten.no AS (Case E-1/17 COSTS 2)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, bus, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, interest, legal expenses, reimbursement of aid, transport company








C_2019233EN.01000701.xml










11.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/7






Action brought on 28 March 2019 by the County of Aust-Agder against Konkurrenten.no AS
(Case E-1/17 COSTS 2)
(2019/C 233/06)
An action against Konkurrenten.no AS was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 March 2019 by the County of Aust-Agder, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Amie Eliassen of Kluge Advokatfirma AS, Bryggegata 6, Postboks 1548 Vika, 0117 Oslo, Norway.
The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:






1.


That the total amount of the costs to be paid by Konkurrenten.no AS to the County of Aust-Agder is NOK 403 430,92, converted into euros at the European Central Bank’s official rates on the day of the notification of the order.










2.


Default interest shall be due on that amount from the date of notification of the present order until the date of payment; the applicable interest rate shall be calculated on the basis of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


Konkurrenten.no AS brought an action against Decision No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015, by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2017. The applicant applied for leave to intervene in the Case, E-1/17 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, which was granted by Order of the President on 12 July 2017.










—


Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states.


‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’












—


In the Order of the Court in Case E-1/17, the EFTA Court ordered Konkurrenten.no AS to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.
Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.) (EU trade mark — Applications for the EU figurative marks Simply. Connected. — Relative ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical engineering, electronic equipment, insurance, registered trade mark, satellite communications, software, trade-mark law, vehicle parts, vocational training








C_2019172EN.01002801.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/28






Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
(Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Applications for the EU figurative marks Simply. Connected. - Relative ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2019/C 172/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 (Case R 948/2016-5) and 10 March 2017 (Case R 947/2016-5), regarding applications for registration of the figurative signs Simply. Connected. as EU trade marks

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Joins Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17 for the purposes of the judgment;











2.



Dismisses the actions;











3.



Orders Robert Bosch GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/245 of 11 February 2019 accepting undertaking offers following the imposition of definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina (OJ L 40, 12.2.2019)
Date: 2019-03-28
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Argentina, biofuel, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product








L_2019086EN.01011701.xml










28.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 86/117







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/245 of 11 February 2019 accepting undertaking offers following the imposition of definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 40 of 12 February 2019
)


On page 77, in Article 1, in the table
for:








‘Molinos Agro S.A.


Produced and sold by Molinos Agro S.A. or
produced by Molinos Agro S.A and sold by Molinos Overseas Commodities S.A., Uruguay, to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C496 ’





read:








‘Molinos Agro S.A.


Produced and sold by Molinos Agro S.A. or
produced by Molinos Agro S.A. and sold by Molinos Overseas Commodities S.A., Uruguay, to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C496 ’.





On page 77, in Article 1, in the table
for:








‘Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos S.A.C.I.F. y A


Produced and sold by Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos S.A.C.I.F. y A to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C497 ’





read:








‘Oleaginosa Moreno Hnos. SACIFI y A


Produced and sold by Oleaginosa Moreno Hnos. SACIFI y A to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C497 ’.





On page 77, in Article 1, in the table
for:








‘Vicentin S.A.I.C.


Produced and sold by Vicentin S.A.I.C. or
produced by Vicentin S.A.I.C. and sold by Vicentin S.A.I.C. Sucursal, Uruguay, to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C498 ’





read:








‘Vicentin S.A.I.C.


Produced and sold by Vicentin S.A.I.C. or
produced by Vicentin S.A.I.C. and sold by Vicentin S.A.I.C. Sucursal Uruguay, Uruguay, to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C498 ’.





On page 77, in Article 1, in the table
for:








‘COFCO International Argentina S.A.


Produced and sold by COFCO International Argentina S.A. or
Produced by COFCO International Argentina S.A. and sold by Cofco Resources S.A., Switzerland, to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C490 ’





read:








‘COFCO International Argentina S.A.


Produced and sold by COFCO International Argentina S.A. or
produced by COFCO International Argentina S.A. and sold by Cofco Resources SA, Switzerland, to the first independent customer in the Union acting as an importer.


C490 ’.