do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Communication in accordance with Article 34(7)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on decisions relating to binding information issued by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, customs regulations, harmonisation of standards, tariff nomenclature








C_2019124EN.01000301.xml










3.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/3






Communication in accordance with Article 34(7)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on decisions relating to binding information issued by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature
(2019/C 124/05)
The customs authorities shall revoke decisions relating to binding information from this day if they become incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:
Classification Decisions, Classification Opinions or amendments to the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, adopted by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC document No NC2570 — report of the 62nd session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER AN ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS AND DECISIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WCO

(62nd SESSION OF THE HSC — SEPTEMBER 2018)
DOC. NC2570

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention







Chapter 29 (Psychotropic substances)


M/20




90.27


M/15




9031.41


M/1





Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee







0404.90/1


M/3




3004.90/7


M/4




3824.99/22


M/5




3923.10/4


M/6




4202.12/1-2


M/7




7007.21/1-2


M/9




8708.29/2-3


M/9




8451.30/2


M/10




8479.89/11


M/11




8512.90/1


M/12




8517.12/1


M/13




9027.80/1-2


M/14




9403.20/7-8


M/16




9403.70/2-3


M/16




Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium) or can be downloaded from the internet site of this Directorate-General:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/what-is-common-customs-tariff/harmonized-system-general-information_en
Case C-278/19 P: Appeal brought on 3 April 2019 by Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2019 in Case T-576/17, Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019406EN.01000702.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/7






Appeal brought on 3 April 2019 by Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2019 in Case T-576/17, Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)
(Case C-278/19 P)
(2019/C 406/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and José Estévez, S.A. (JESA)
By order of 25 September 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. to pay its own costs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/551 of 3 April 2019 approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication ‘Graves supérieures’ (PDO)
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Aquitaine, France, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, white wine








L_2019096EN.01000501.xml










5.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 96/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/551
of 3 April 2019
         
approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication ‘Graves supérieures’ (PDO)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission has examined France's application pursuant to Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Graves supérieures’.












(2)


The Commission published the application for the approval of amendments to the specification, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Graves supérieures’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


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, 3 April 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 449, 13.12.2018, p. 22.
Case T-195/19: Action brought on 3 April 2019 — GEA Group v Commission
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, heating, parent company, restriction on competition, sanction (EU), subsidiary








C_2019206EN.01005101.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/51






Action brought on 3 April 2019 — GEA Group v Commission
(Case T-195/19)
(2019/C 206/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont, R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission decision BUDG/DGAl/C/4/PL/Ares(2019) s. 283284 of 24 January 2019; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 266 TFEU as it would have declined to repay the fines paid by the applicant in order to comply with Commission decision C(2016) 3920 of 29 June 2016.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 266 TFEU as it would have reapplied de facto decision C(2010) 727 (final) of 8 February 2010 or Commission decision C(2016) 3920 of 29 June 2016 which both would have been annulled by the General Court by the judgment of 15 July 2015, GEA Group v Commission, T-189/10, EU:T:2015:504 and by the judgment of 18 October 2018, GEA Group v Commission, T-640/16, EU:T:2018:700 respectively.
Case C-279/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, consumer goods, excise duty, taxpayer








C_2019230EN.01002101.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/21






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR
(Case C-279/19)
(2019/C 230/25)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondent: WR

Questions referred







1)


Is a person (‘P’) who is in physical possession of excise goods at a point when those goods become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B, liable for that excise duty pursuant to Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) in circumstances where that person:






a)


had no legal or beneficial interest in the excise goods;










b)


was transporting the excise goods, for a fee, on behalf of others between Member State A and Member State B; and










c)


knew that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods but did not know and did not have reason to suspect that the goods had become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B at or prior to the time that they became so chargeable?














2)


Is the answer to Question 1 different if P did not know that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods?






(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009, L 9, p. 12).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9347 — OEP/WP Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health care, mechanical engineering, merger control, technology, vehicle parts








C_2019124EN.01000501.xml










3.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9347 — OEP/WP Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 124/07)

1.   
On 27 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:






—


OEP Capital Advisors, L.P. (‘OEP’, the United States of America),










—


Powertrain Services UK Ltd and its subsidiaries and certain affiliates carrying on the Walterscheid Powertrain business (the ‘WP Group’, the UK).




OEP acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the whole of the WP Group.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


OEP is a middle-market private equity firm focused on transformative combinations within the industrial, healthcare and technology sectors in North America and Europe,










—


The WP Group is a global supplier of off-highway powertrain products and services to the OEM/OES market as well as the international aftermarket.






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.9347 — OEP/WP Group
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-281/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France) lodged on 3 April 2019 — XS v Recteur de l’académie de Paris
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, free movement of workers, professional experience, teacher








C_2019187EN.01005501.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/55






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France) lodged on 3 April 2019 — XS v Recteur de l’académie de Paris
(Case C-281/19)
(2019/C 187/58)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XS

Defendant: Recteur de l’académie de Paris

Question referred

Does French law, which does not take into account for the purposes of regrading within the school-teaching professional body the previous service of an official with the European Commission, or more broadly, with an EU institution, whereas it does provide for previous professional activities carried out within the authorities of an EU Member State to be taken into account, infringe the obligations and scope of Article 45 of the Treaty on the Function of the European Union?
Case T-555/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019187EN.01007901.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/79






Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2019 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)
(Case T-555/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 187/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Medrobotics Corp. (Rayanham, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2018 (Case R 463/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign See More. Reach More. Treat More. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Medrobotics Corp. to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-266/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Aqua Med sp. z o.o. v Irena Skóra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 1(2) — Scope of the directive — Contractual term conferring territorial jurisdiction on the court determined pursuant to the general rules — Article 6(1) — Review of unfairness of the court’s own motion — Article 7(1) — Obligations and powers of the national court)
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, consumer protection, judicial review, jurisdiction, unfair terms of contract








C_2019206EN.01001402.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/14






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Aqua Med sp. z o.o. v Irena Skóra
(Case C-266/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 1(2) - Scope of the directive - Contractual term conferring territorial jurisdiction on the court determined pursuant to the general rules - Article 6(1) - Review of unfairness of the court’s own motion - Article 7(1) - Obligations and powers of the national court)
(2019/C 206/17)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Aqua Med sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Irena Skóra

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which refers to the national law applicable so far as concerns the determination of jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties to the contract, does not fall outside the scope of that directive.










2.


Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding procedural rules, to which a contractual term refers, which allow the seller or supplier to choose, in the event of an action for alleged non-performance of a contract by the consumer, between the court which has jurisdiction in the place where the defendant is domiciled and that which has jurisdiction in the place of performance of the contract, unless the choice of place of performance of the contract gives rise, for the consumer, to procedural conditions which are such as to restrict excessively the right to an effective remedy conferred on him by the European Union legal order, which is a matter for the national court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1922 of 10 October 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (OJ L 319, 14.12.2018)
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: broker, carriage of goods, dual-use good, export (EU), export licence, export monitoring, intra-EU trade, trade restriction, transit








L_2019094EN.01000301.xml










3.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 94/3







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1922 of 10 October 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 319 of 14 December 2018
)


On page 188, in section 6C004, point c, point 2 should read:







‘2.


Second order non-linear susceptibility (χ(2), chi 2) of 3,3×10–11 m/V or more;’.
Case C-318/18: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Oracle Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, aid recipient, control of State aid, group of companies, reimbursement of aid, tax exemption








C_2019220EN.01002802.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/28






Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Oracle Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat
(Case C-318/18) (1)

(2019/C 220/35)
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019124EN.01000401.xml










3.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

2 April 2019
(2019/C 124/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1200 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,73 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4646 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86000 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4418 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1195 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6445 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,753 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,68 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2953 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7618 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2141 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5817 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4919 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7918 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6544 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5178 




KRW


South Korean won


1 272,75 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8256 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5265 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4298 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 926,40 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5715 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,706 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,2144 




THB


Thai baht


35,560 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3237 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3972 




INR


Indian rupee


77,0035 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-50/18: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Mijo Meštrović v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal, in the presence of: Finanzpolizei
Date: 2019-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, document storage, posted worker








C_2019280EN.01003201.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/32






Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Mijo Meštrović v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal, in the presence of: Finanzpolizei
(Case C-50/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/44)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.