do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-286/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Azarov v Council
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019213EN.01007801.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/78






Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Azarov v Council
(Case T-286/19)
(2019/C 213/74)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, 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 2019 L 64, p. 7) and 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 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order specific measures of organisation pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in particular:






a)


invite the Council to submit documents on the examination of the observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection and on the examination of the validity of the allegations; and










b)


invite the EEAS to submit documents on the examination of the observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection;














—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the challenged legal acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
First, the applicant complains of infringement of the defendant’s formal examination obligations, in particular with regard to independent examination, examination of jurisdiction and observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection. In this regard, he claims that the defendant has not complied with its obligations set out in the judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2018, Azarov v Council (C-530/17 P, EU:C:2018:1031).
Further, the applicant relies on an infringement of the defendant’s duty to state reasons, as it failed to examine the validity of the allegations made against the applicant.
Case T-292/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Pšonka v Council
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019246EN.01003001.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/30






Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Pšonka v Council
(Case T-292/19)
(2019/C 246/32)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Artem Viktorovič Pšonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul 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, and 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, in so far as that Decision and that Regulation relate to the applicant; and










—


Declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration.
The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property.
The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as was his right to the protection of private property.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/696 of 3 May 2019 amending for the 301st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism








LI2019116EN.01000101.xml










3.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 116/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/696
of 3 May 2019
         
amending for the 301st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 1 May 2019, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to add one entry to the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly.












(3)


In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective it should enter into force immediately,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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 May 2019.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 the following entry is added under the heading ‘Natural persons’:


            ‘Mohammed Masood Azhar Alvi (Low quality alias (a) Masud Azhar, (b) Wali Adam Isah, (c) Wali Adam Esah). Date of birth: a) 10.7.1968, b) 10.6.1968. Place of birth: Bahawalpur, Punjab Province, Pakistan. Nationality: Pakistan. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 1.5.2019.’
Case T-287/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — BigBen Interactive v EUIPO — natcon7 (nacon)
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electronic game, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019220EN.01004301.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/43






Action brought on 3 May 2019 — BigBen Interactive v EUIPO — natcon7 (nacon)
(Case T-287/19)
(2019/C 220/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BigBen Interactive (Fretin, France) (represented by: M. Chaminade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: natcon7 GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

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 figurative mark nacon — Application for registration No 13 036 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2019 in Case R 1745/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9284 — BillerudKorsnäs Venture/ALPLA Holding/ecoXpac) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, new technology, packaging product, plastics industry, pulp and paper industry, research body








C_2019158EN.01000201.xml










10.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9284 — BillerudKorsnäs Venture/ALPLA Holding/ecoXpac)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 158/03)
On 3 May 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 32019M9284. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 353, 31.12.2008)
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: classification, dangerous substance, environmental protection, labelling, packaging, public health








L_2019117EN.01000801.xml










3.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 117/8







Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 353 of 31 December 2008
)


On page 324, Annex IV, Part 2, Table 1.5 ‘Precautionary statements — Disposal’, third column, the entry concerning LT:
for:

               ‘Turinį/talpyklą išpilti (išmesti) į …’,
read:

               ‘Turinį/talpyklą šalinti …’.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011 (OJ L 327, 9.12.2017)
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, biometrics, border control, data processing, exchange of information, external border of the EU, foreign national, information system








L_2019117EN.01001401.xml










3.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 117/14







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 327 of 9 December 2017
)


On page 70, Article 61, point (6), new Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, first subparagraph, point (a):
for:

               ‘… referred to in Article 9(2) and (4);’,
read:

               ‘… referred to in points (2) and (4) of Article 9;’.
On page 70, Article 61, point (6), new Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, point (a):
for:

               ‘… referred to in Article 9(2) and (4);’,
read:

               ‘… referred to in points (2) and (4) of Article 9;’.
On page 71, Article 61, point (8), new Article 19a(5) of Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, point (a):
for:

               ‘… referred to in Article 9(2) and (4);’,
read:

               ‘… referred to in points (2) and (4) of Article 9;’.
Case T-290/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, baby food, food supplement, medical device, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019213EN.01008001.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/80






Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)
(Case T-290/19)
(2019/C 213/76)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other) — Application for registration No 1 375 540

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2019 in Case R 1918/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.