do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-295/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Klymenko 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_2019213EN.01008002.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/80






Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Klymenko v Council
(Case T-295/19)
(2019/C 213/77)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action brought by Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko admissible;










—


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;










—


annul 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;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that insufficient reasons are given for the contested measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the fundamental principles of EU law and set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, since Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union cannot provide a legal basis for the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, in that the applicant has provided evidence proving the lack of a sufficient factual basis for bringing criminal proceedings.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for property, a fundamental principle of EU law enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Case C-354/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, patent, pharmaceutical product, quality label








C_2019230EN.01002301.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket
(Case C-354/19)
(2019/C 230/28)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Novartis AG

Other party: Patent-och registreringsverket

Question referred

In view of the fundamental purpose which the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is intended to fulfil, namely that of stimulating pharmaceutical research in the European Union, does Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009, (1) having regard to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, preclude an applicant who has previously been granted a supplementary protection certificate in respect of a product protected by a basic patent, in force in respect of the product per se, from being granted a supplementary protection certificate for a new use of the product in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the new use constitutes a new therapeutic indication which is specifically protected by a new basic patent?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).
Case C-361/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — De Ruiter vof v De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU control, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, eligibility criteria, rural development








C_2019270EN.01001701.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — De Ruiter vof v De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
(Case C-361/19)
(2019/C 270/18)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: De Ruiter vof

Defendant: De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Question referred

Are Article 99(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy [and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008] and Article 73(4)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 (2) of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance valid, in so far as, in those provisions, the year of the finding of non-compliance is decisive for the determination of the year for which the cross-compliance reduction is calculated, in a situation where the year of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules is not the same as the year of the finding of non-compliance?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 May 2019 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2019151EN.01000301.xml










3.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/3






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 May 2019
Euro exchange rates (2)

2 May 2019
(2019/C 151/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1212 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,01 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4655 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85930 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6850 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1419 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7450 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,648 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2800 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7583 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,6872 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5970 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5064 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7958 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6916 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5259 




KRW


South Korean won


1 304,15 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2178 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5508 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4143 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 977,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6384 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,023 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,2535 




THB


Thai baht


35,906 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4095 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2467 




INR


Indian rupee


77,7820 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-356/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, euro, exchange rate, indemnification, national currency, residence, traveller








C_2019280EN.01002201.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.
(Case C-356/19)
(2019/C 280/29)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Delfly sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) be interpreted as governing not only the scope of the obligation to pay compensation but also the manner in which that obligation is to be discharged?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can a passenger or his legal successor effectively demand the payment of the equivalent of EUR 400 in another currency, including, in particular, the national currency of the place of residence of the passenger whose flight was cancelled or delayed?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to determine the currency in which the passenger or his legal successor may demand payment, and what exchange rate should be applied?










4.


Do Article 7(1) or other provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 preclude the application of provisions of national law concerning the performance of obligations which result in the dismissal of an action brought by a passenger or his legal successor on the sole ground that the claim incorrectly indicated the national currency of the passenger’s place of residence rather than the Euro in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Regulation?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case T-291/19: 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.01002901.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/29






Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Pšonka v Council
(Case T-291/19)
(2019/C 246/31)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Pavlovič Pšonka (Kiev, 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9238 — INEOS/Ashland Global (Composites Business and Butanediol Manufacturing Facility)) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, petrochemicals, special chemicals








C_2019151EN.01001401.xml










3.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9238 — INEOS/Ashland Global (Composites Business and Butanediol Manufacturing Facility))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 151/06)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


INEOS Enterprises Holdings Limited (‘INEOS’, Switzerland),










—


Global composites business and manufacturing facility in Marl (Germany) of Ashland Global Holdings Inc. (‘Ashland’, US) (‘the Target’).




INEOS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of parts of Ashland.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for INEOS, the manufacture and sale of petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and oil products, globally,










—


for the Target, the manufacture and sale of specialty chemicals used in the production of composite resins such as vinyl ester resins, gel coats and unsaturated polyester resins, as well as the manufacture (in Marl) and sale of butanediol, tetrahydrofuran and other specialty chemicals used in the production of engineering plastics, thermoplastic elastomers and specialty solvent, globally.






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.



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.9238 — INEOS/Ashland Global (Composites Business and Butanediol Manufacturing Facility)
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’).
Case C-360/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Crown Van Gelder B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, energy supply, energy transport, single market








C_2019270EN.01001601.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Crown Van Gelder B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt
(Case C-360/19)
(2019/C 270/17)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Crown Van Gelder B.V.

Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

Question referred

Must Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC be interpreted as meaning that that provision also makes the right of complaint with regard to the operator of the national grid (transmission system operator) available to a party if that party has no connection to the grid of that national grid operator (transmission system operator) but has a connection only to a regional grid (distribution system) to which the transmission of electricity is interrupted as a result of a power cut on the national grid (transmission system) that feeds the regional grid (distribution system)?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.
Case T-288/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019213EN.01007901.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/79






Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)
(Case T-288/19)
(2019/C 213/75)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Divaro, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Santos Quintana and M. A. Fernández Munárriz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark IPANEMA — Application for registration No 14 180 038

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 July 2018 (opposition B 2 598 285;










—


order that the opposing mark EUTM No 14 180 038 is to be registered for all the goods referred to in the application;










—


order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 3 May 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40134 — AB InBev Beer Trade Restrictions Rapporteur: Germany2019/C 407/04
Date: 2019-05-03
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Belgium, EU competition policy, Netherlands, beer, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, import restriction, packaging, restrictive trade practice, sanction (EU)








C_2019407EN.01000401.xml










3.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 407/4






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions
at its meeting on 3 May 2019 concerning a draft decision in
Case AT.40134 — AB InBev Beer Trade Restrictions
Rapporteur: Germany
(2019/C 407/04)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes an abuse of a dominant position that infringes Article 102 TFEU.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision as regards the duration of the infringement.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a remedy should be imposed, as set out in the draft decision.



4.   

The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines, imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



6.   

The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.