do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-296/19: Action brought on 6 May 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, food industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, tourism, trade-mark law, wine








C_2019213EN.01008201.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/82






Action brought on 6 May 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)
(Case T-296/19)
(2019/C 213/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and A. Sebastião, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heretat Mont-Rubi, SA (Font-Rubi, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SUM011 — Application for registration No 13 761 168

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 in Case R 1662/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision and order the refusal of EUTM Application No. 13 761 168 SUM011 for the remaining services in classes 35 and 39;










—


order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-357/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, PM, RO, SP, TQ v QN, UR, VS, WT, Autoritatea Națională pentru Turism, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, SC Euro Box Promotion SRL
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, constitutional court, judge, jurisdiction, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, ruling








C_2019288EN.01001901.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, PM, RO, SP, TQ v QN, UR, VS, WT, Autoritatea Națională pentru Turism, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, SC Euro Box Promotion SRL
(Case C-357/19)
(2019/C 288/24)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, PM, RO, SP, TQ

Defendants: QN, UR, VS, WT, Autoritatea Națională pentru Turism, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, SC Euro Box Promotion SRL

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 1(1)(a) and (b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a decision by a body outside the judicial system, the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional Court of Romania), which adjudicates on the lawfulness of the composition of Chambers hearing the case, in that way creating the conditions for allowing extraordinary actions brought against final judgments delivered in a given period?










2.


Must Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a finding by a body outside the judicial system — binding under national law — of the lack of independence and impartiality of a Chamber which includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who has not been randomly appointed, but on the basis of a transparent rule known to the parties and unchallenged by them, applicable to all the cases dealt with by that same chamber?










3.


Must the primacy of EU law be interpreted as allowing the national court to disapply a decision of the constitutional court, handed down in a case concerning a constitutional dispute, binding under national law?
Case T-283/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Bernis and Others v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, company in difficulties, credit institution, equal treatment, liquidation, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, right to justice, subsidiary








C_2019230EN.01004801.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/48






Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Bernis and Others v ECB
(Case T-283/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Parent company and subsidiary - Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Preparatory measures - Acts not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 230/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Marafioti and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents, and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that ABLV Bank AS and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



Mr Ernests Bernis, Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB).







(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case C-368/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA and Others v Roma Capitale and Others
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, freedom to provide services, regulation of telecommunications, telecommunications equipment, telecommunications industry








C_2019312EN.01000301.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA and Others v Roma Capitale and Others
(Case C-368/19)
(2019/C 312/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA and Lindam Srl

Respondents: Roma Capitale, Regione Lazio, Vodafone Italia SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA and Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Question referred

Does EU law preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 8(6) of legge 22 febbraio 2001, n. 36 (Law No 36 of 22 February 2001), which is understood and applied as allowing individual local authorities to define siting criteria for mobile telephone apparatus, which may be expressed in the form of prohibitions, such as a prohibition on placing antennae in specific areas or within a certain distance of a certain type of building?
Case T-699/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, financial analysis, financial services, investment company, loan, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019230EN.01006601.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/66






Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)
(Case T-699/18) (1)

(2019/C 230/79)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9239 — Evonik/Peroxychem) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019154EN.01000501.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9239 — Evonik/Peroxychem)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 154/04)

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) and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation by which Evonik Industries AG (‘Evonik’, Germany), controlled by RAG Stiftung (Germany), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Peroxychem Holdings L.P. (‘Peroxychem’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.



2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Evonik: the production and marketing of specialty chemicals, focusing on products in the areas of nutrition and care, resource efficiency and performance materials,
—   for Peroxychem: the production and supply of hydrogen peroxide, persulfates and peracetic acid, as well as the resale of sulphur derivatives.


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.9239 — Evonik/Peroxychem
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 T-271/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Mauritsch v INEA (Civil service — Contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Initial rejection by the applicant of the offer of extension of contract — Resignation — Refusal of entitlement to unemployment benefits — Liability)
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, indemnification, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, unemployment insurance








C_2019213EN.01003202.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/32






Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Mauritsch v INEA
(Case T-271/18) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Initial rejection by the applicant of the offer of extension of contract - Resignation - Refusal of entitlement to unemployment benefits - Liability)
(2019/C 213/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Walter Mauritsch (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment, firstly of the decision of the INEA of 24 January 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2017 and, secondly, the decision of the INEA of 2 August 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation of 10 April 2017, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Walter Mauritsch to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case C-362/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2019 in Case T-865/16, Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, corporation tax, professional sport, reimbursement of aid, sports body, tax relief








C_2019238EN.01001101.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/11






Appeal brought on 6 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2019 in Case T-865/16, Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission
(Case C-362/19 P)
(2019/C 238/14)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, B. Stromsky and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fútbol Club Barcelona and Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










—


reserve the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and, in particular, in its interpretation of the concept of the advantage of State aid and the Commission’s duty to assess whether there is such an advantage. That single ground of appeal is divided into two parts, which derive from the error of law identified:






—


First, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding that the examination to determine whether a particular tax regime confers an advantage on its beneficiaries requires not only an analysis of the inherent and well established criteria of the regime being examined, which may place the beneficiaries in a more favourable position in comparison with other undertakings subject to the general regime, but also that that assessment also requires the analysis of unfavourable elements caused by variable circumstances outside the regime in each tax year, even when those unfavourable elements are uncertain and cannot systematically negate the advantage and that, furthermore, they cannot be foreseen in an ex ante review of the regime.










—


Second, including on the basis of that incorrect assessment of the concept of advantage, the General Court misinterpreted the Commission’s due diligence obligation in the context of the examination of the existence of a State aid system, and erred in law with regard to the burden of proof which the Commission has in showing that there is an advantage in this case.
Communication from the Commission
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central Transdanubia, European cultural event, European symbol, Hungary, capital city








C_2019154EN.01000201.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/2






Communication from the Commission
(2019/C 154/02)
The 2023 European Capital of Culture in Hungary is Veszprém.
Case T-281/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, company in difficulties, credit institution, equal treatment, liquidation, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, right to justice, subsidiary








C_2019230EN.01004701.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/47






Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB
(Case T-281/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Parent company and subsidiary - Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Preparatory measures - Acts not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 230/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Marafioti and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents, and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that the applicant and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



ABLV Bank AS shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB).







(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case C-358/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 2019 by PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2019 in Case T-566/18, PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület v European Commission
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, consumer protection, legal expenses








C_2019372EN.01000901.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/9






Appeal brought on 6 May 2019 by PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2019 in Case T-566/18, PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület v European Commission
(Case C-358/19 P)
(2019/C 372/06)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület (represented by: D. Lázár, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party: European Commission
By order of 26 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019154EN.01000101.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 May 2019
(2019/C 154/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1155 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,40 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4657 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85785 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7043 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1383 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7783 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,712 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,38 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2853 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7553 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,6644 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5943 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5019 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7512 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6856 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5209 




KRW


South Korean won


1 305,08 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2072 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5124 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4143 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 901,45 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6187 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,860 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,8703 




THB


Thai baht


35,724 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4194 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3377 




INR


Indian rupee


77,2590 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9234 — Harris Corporation/L3 Technologies) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advanced technology industry, aeronautical industry, arms industry, economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, telecommunications








C_2019154EN.01000601.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 154/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9234 — Harris Corporation/L3 Technologies)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 154/05)

1.   
On 26 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:






—


Harris Corporation (‘Harris’) (USA)










—


L3 Technologies, Inc. (‘L3’) (USA)




Harris acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of L3.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Harris: international aerospace and defence technology supplier of products, systems and services for defence, civil government and commercial applications,
—   for L3: international aerospace and defence company supplying intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, communications and electronic systems for military, homeland security and commercial aviation customers.


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.9234 — Harris Corporation/L3 Technologies
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’).