do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-748/16: Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — QH v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Principles of objectivity and impartiality — Right to good administration — Right to be heard)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment








C_2019213EN.01002601.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/26






Judgment of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — QH v Parliament
(Case T-748/16) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Principles of objectivity and impartiality - Right to good administration - Right to be heard)
(2019/C 213/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: QH (represented initially by N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, and subsequently by N. Lhoëst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 January 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 11 December 2014 and the decision of 12 July 2016 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment rejected the applicant’s claim and, secondly, compensation for the loss he allegedly suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of that authority when processing that request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the European Parliament’s decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting his request for assistance, as confirmed by the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his claim;











2.



Dismisses the claim as to the remainder;











3.



Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-145/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) — Project LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING — Recovery of sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2019213EN.01003801.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/38






Order of the President of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission
(Case T-145/19 R)
(Application for interim measures - Environment - Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) - Project LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING - Recovery of sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
(2019/C 213/40)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: G. Alabau Zabal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Izquierdo Pérez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision BUDG/DGA 1/C4/CB/3241812545 of 14 January 2019 regarding the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 82 750.96 plus default interest.

Operative part of the order







1.



The application for interim measures is dismissed.











2.



The costs are reserved.
Case C-309/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of a tenderer who has failed to state those costs separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, public procurement, services contract, services of general interest, wage cost








C_2019220EN.01001202.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/12






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano
(Case C-309/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Labour costs - Automatic exclusion of a tenderer who has failed to state those costs separately in the tender - Principle of proportionality)
(2019/C 220/16)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lavorgna Srl

Defendants: Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano

Intervener: Gea Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and transparency, as referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the failure to state labour costs separately, in a financial tender submitted in a public contract award procedure, entails the exclusion of that tender without the possibility of supplementing or amending the tendering documentation, including in a situation where the obligation to state those costs separately is not specified in the tender specifications, in so far as that condition and that possibility of excluding tenders are clearly provided for by national legislation on public procurement procedures in which explicit reference was made to that legislation. However, if the provisions of the call for tenders do not allow tenderers to state those costs in their financial tenders, the principles of transparency and proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding tenderers being allowed to rectify their situation and fulfil the obligations provided for by national legislation in the field within a time limit set by the contracting authority.


(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case C-98/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — T. Boer & Zonen BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of health — Hygiene package — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Hygiene of food of animal origin — Rules for food business operators — Specific requirements — Meat of domestic ungulates — Storage and transport — Requirements for the temperature of the meat)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal product, food inspection, food processing, food safety, health policy, meat processing industry, meat product








C_2019220EN.01000502.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/5






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — T. Boer & Zonen BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
(Case C-98/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of health - Hygiene package - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Hygiene of food of animal origin - Rules for food business operators - Specific requirements - Meat of domestic ungulates - Storage and transport - Requirements for the temperature of the meat)
(2019/C 220/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T. Boer & Zonen BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

Annex III, Section I, Chapter VII, points 1 and 3, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the chilling of meat after slaughter must be carried out in the slaughterhouse itself until the meat has reached a temperature throughout of not more than 7 oC before any loading of the meat into a refrigerated truck.


(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case C-524/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Italy) — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, pension fund, social security legislation, social-security contribution, supplementary pension








C_2019288EN.01000201.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/2






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Italy) — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano
(Case C-524/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 288/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Defendant: Francesco Faggiano

Operative part of the order

There is no need to adjudicate on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Corte dei Conti (Court of Auditors, Italy) by decision of 5 July 2016.


(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
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: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, organic chemical, solvent








C_2019150EN.01001001.xml










2.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 150/10






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 150/05)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 2941


24 April 2019


Bis(2-methoxyethyl)ether (diglyme)
EC No 203-924-4;
CAS No 111-96-6


Life Technologies AS, Ullernchaussen 52, NO-0379, PO Box 114 Smestad, NO-0309, Oslo, Norway


REACH/19/20/0


Use as a process chemical in the manufacture of Dynabeads®



22 August 2029








—


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










—


There are no suitable alternatives.










(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-284/19: Action brought on 2 May 2019 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019238EN.01002401.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/24






Action brought on 2 May 2019 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)
(Case T-284/19)
(2019/C 238/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wonder Line, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark KENWELL — Application for registration No 13 532 296

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 in Case R 1351/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and possible co-defendants to pay all expenses of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9307 — Onex/AEG/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: culture industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, sporting event








C_2019150EN.01001401.xml










2.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 150/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9307 — Onex/AEG/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 150/07)

1.   
On 24 April 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:






—


Onex Corporation (‘Onex’, Canada),










—


Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. (‘AEG’, USA), controlled by The Anschutz Corporation (USA).




Onex and AEG acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (the ‘JV’), which will be called ASM Global (‘ASM’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Onex: a private equity business engaged in the provision of investment management services to a number of investment funds. Onex controls a number of portfolio companies which are active across multiple industry sectors,
—   for AEG: sports and live entertainment.
The JV will combine the venue management division of AEG, AEG Facilities LLC, and venue management business of Onex, SMG US Parent, Inc.


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.9307 — Onex/AEG/JV
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-259/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid — Spain) — Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA v Asendia Spain SLU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 97/67/EC — Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services — Provision of the universal postal service — Exclusive rights of the designated operator — Issue of means of payment for postage other than postage stamps)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exclusive distribution agreement, postal charges, postal service, universal service








C_2019220EN.01000902.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/9






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid — Spain) — Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA v Asendia Spain SLU
(Case C-259/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services - Provision of the universal postal service - Exclusive rights of the designated operator - Issue of means of payment for postage other than postage stamps)
(2019/C 220/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA

Defendant: Asendia Spain SLU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) and Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which guarantees to the postal operator designated for the provision of the universal postal service an exclusive right to distribute means of payment for postage other than postage stamps.


(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Case C-224/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Budimex S.A. v Minister Finansów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 66 — Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax — Time of the supply of the services — Construction and installation work — Taking into account the time of the acceptance of the work stipulated in the contract for the supply of services)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building industry, invoicing, payment, provision of services








C_2019220EN.01000701.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/7






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Budimex S.A. v Minister Finansów
(Case C-224/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 66 - Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax - Time of the supply of the services - Construction and installation work - Taking into account the time of the acceptance of the work stipulated in the contract for the supply of services)
(2019/C 220/09)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Budimex S.A.

Other party to the proceedings: Minister Finansów

Operative part of the judgment

Point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding, if an invoice relating to the performance of the service supplied is not issued or is issued late, the formal acceptance of that service from being regarded as the time when that service was supplied, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, the Member State provides that VAT is to become chargeable on expiry of a time limit running from the day when the service was supplied, provided, first, that the formality of acceptance was stipulated by the parties in the contract that binds them according to contractual terms reflecting the economic and commercial realities in the field in which the service is supplied and, second, that that formality constitutes the actual completion of the service and determines the amount of consideration due, which is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.