do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9306 — ENGIE/CDPQ/TAG) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy industry, gas industry, gas pipeline, gas supply, investment company, merger control








C_2019146EN.01000102.xml










26.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9306 — ENGIE/CDPQ/TAG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 146/02)
On 15 April 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 32019M9306. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9308 — Ansaldo/REPH/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical engineering, electrical industry, energy industry, machinery, mechanical engineering, merger control








C_2019146EN.01000101.xml










26.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9308 — Ansaldo/REPH/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 146/01)
On 15 April 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 32019M9308. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-310/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition (EU), recruitment, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2019255EN.01001703.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/17






Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA
(Case C-310/19 P)
(2019/C 255/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Boudewijn Schokker (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17, Schokker v EASA;










—


refer the case back to the General Court; and










—


reserve the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims, first, that the General Court erred in law by dismissing the action on a ground that it had raised if its own motion and erroneously categorised as ‘manifest’. When it did so, the General Court infringed Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure and the appellant’s rights of defence.
The appellant submits, second, that the General Court erred in law by concluding that a verification of the grounds for the withdrawal of the offer of employment at issue was irrelevant, as an offer of employment can, in any case, be withdrawn at any moment without being subject to any conditions.
Case T-253/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — BG v Parliament
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, harassment at work, right to justice, termination of a contract, termination of employment








C_2019213EN.01006201.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/62






Action brought on 15 April 2019 — BG v Parliament
(Case T-253/19)
(2019/C 213/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BG (represented by: L. Levi, A. Champetier and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Parliament’s decision of 18 May 2018 terminating the applicant’s contract;










—


if needed, annul the European Parliament’s decision of 4 January 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 August 2018, notified on 9 January 2019;










—


order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of EUR 50 000;










—


order the defendant to bear 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 breach of the duty to state reasons and of the procedural rules applicable in the case of termination of the contract in question.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations and in this connection infringement of the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially and fairly, violation of the duty to act diligently and manifest error of assessment.
Council Decision of 15 April 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Belgium, Greece, France and Malta
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belgium, France, Greece, Malta, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, occupational safety




C_2019142EN.01002001.xml










23.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/20






COUNCIL DECISION
of 15 April 2019
appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Belgium, Greece, France and Malta
(2019/C 142/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to the Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 12 March 2019 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 1 March 2019 to 28 February 2022.










(2)


The Governments of Belgium, Greece and Malta, the employees' organisations of Belgium, Greece, France and Malta, and the employers' organisations of Belgium, Greece, France and Malta have submitted further nominations for several posts to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
The following are hereby appointed as members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2022:
I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternate members




Belgium


Ms Godelieve PONNET


Ms Véronique CRUTZEN
Mr Xavier LEBICHOT




Greece


Mr Ioannis KONSTANTAKOPOULOS


Mr Georgios GOURZOULIDIS
Ms Aggeliki MOIROU




Malta


Mr Mark GAUCI


Mr David SALIBA
Mr Melhino MERCIECA







II.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternate members




Belgium


Ms Caroline VERDOOT


Mr Herman FONCK
Mr Kris VAN EYCK




Greece


Mr Andreas STOIMENIDIS


Mr Ioannis ADAMAKIS
Mr Alexandros KOMINIS




France


Mr Abderrafik ZAIGOUCHE


Ms Edwina LAMOUREUX
Mr Jean-Paul ZERBIB




Malta


Mr Alfred LIA


Mr Edwin BALZAN
Mr Anthony CASARU







III.   EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternate members




Belgium


Mr Kris DE MEESTER


Ms Dorothée DUPUIS
Mr Marc JUNIUS




Greece


Mr Christos KAVALOPOULOS


Mr Antonios MEGOULIS
Ms Anastasia AVLONITOU




France


Ms Nathalie BUET


Mr Franck GAMBELLI
Mr Pierre THILLAUD




Malta


Ms Abigail MAMO


Mr Joe DELIA
Mr Andy TANTI






Article 2
The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.


Article 3
This Decision shall be published for information in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Done at Luxembourg, 15 April 2019.


For the Council


The President

P. DAEA




(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 100, 15.3.2019, p. 1.
Case C-306/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU energy policy, electrical energy, energy production, ownership, principle of legal certainty, public sector, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2019213EN.01001801.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE
(Case C-306/19)
(2019/C 213/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Milis Energy SpA

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that set out in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted into law by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of ad hoc agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process? In particular, is such a provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectations, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and the rules governing support schemes laid down therein, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the Energy Charter Treaty?


(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Case C-308/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Consiliul Concurenței v Whiteland Import Export SRL
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, competition law, limitation of legal proceedings, restriction on competition








C_2019263EN.01002801.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Consiliul Concurenței v Whiteland Import Export SRL
(Case C-308/19)
(2019/C 263/32)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Consiliul Concurenței

Respondent: Whiteland Import Export SRL

Question referred

Must Articles 4(3) TEU and 101 TFEU be interpreted as requiring the courts of the Member States to interpret the provisions of national law governing the time-limit on the Competition Authority’s right to impose administrative penalties in accordance with the provisions of Article 25(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and as precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law as meaning that an action interrupting the limitation period means only the formal action of initiating the investigation into an anti-competitive practice, without the subsequent actions taken for the purpose of such investigation falling within the same scope of the actions interrupting the limitation period?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/648 of 15 April 2019 repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, recording equipment, specification of tariff heading








L_2019110EN.01001601.xml










25.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 110/16








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/648
of 15 April 2019
         
repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 57(4) and Article 58(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 (2), the Commission classified an apparatus designed to capture a sequence of images and incorporating a volatile internal memory able to temporarily store those images (so-called ‘high speed camera’), under CN code 8525 80 19 as other television cameras.












(2)


In its judgement in Case C-372/17 (3), the Court of Justice ruled that Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 is invalid.












(3)


For reasons of legal certainty, provisions which have been declared invalid by the Court of Justice should be formally removed from the legal order of the Union.












(4)


Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 should therefore be repealed.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 is repealed.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 15 April 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Stephen QUEST
            

Director-General


Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union






(1)  
            OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 38, 7.2.2014, p. 20).

(3)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2018, Vision Research Europe, C-372/17, EU:C:2018:708.
Case T-250/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Tradición CZ v EUIPO — Rivero Argudo (TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L.)
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, packaging, processed food product, registered trade mark, retail trade, storage, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2019187EN.01008801.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/88






Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Tradición CZ v EUIPO — Rivero Argudo (TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L.)
(Case T-250/19)
(2019/C 187/95)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Tradición CZ, SL (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: María Dolores Rivero Argudo (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L. — Application for registration No 14 977 045

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 257/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Stay the present proceedings until a final decision is taken in the revocation proceedings against the opposing trade mark No 7272594 RIVERO CZ (proceedings 33785-C) before EUIPO.










—


Declare the first plea well founded, annul the contested decision and find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.










—


In the alternative and cumulatively, declare the second plea well founded, annul the contested decision and find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue in respect of the services in Class 35 relating to the sale of vinegars and musts.










—


Order EUIPO and the other party, should she appear in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019138EN.01000101.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 April 2019
(2019/C 138/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1321 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,76 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4643 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86290 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4788 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1326 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6020 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,623 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,90 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2796 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7598 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5350 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5771 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5082 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8788 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6748 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5318 




KRW


South Korean won


1 283,00 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7631 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5939 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4350 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 954,12 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6580 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,553 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,6133 




THB


Thai baht


35,955 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3884 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2360 




INR


Indian rupee


78,2915 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-191/17: Order of the General Court of 15 April 2019 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v Commission
Date: 2019-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer information, economic discrimination, equal treatment, labelling, marketing, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation








C_2019206EN.01009701.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/97






Order of the General Court of 15 April 2019 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v Commission
(Case T-191/17) (1)

(2019/C 206/86)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.