do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Notice of open competition
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, audit, competition (EU), recruitment








C_2019156EN.01000601.xml










7.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/6






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2019/C 156/07)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AD/372/19 — ADMINISTRATORS IN THE FIELD OF AUDIT (AD 5/AD 7)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 156 A of 7 May 2019.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9351 — DIF/Green Investment Group/Covanta/Dublin Waste-to-energy facility) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy production, investment company, merger control, renewable energy, waste disposal








C_2019166EN.01000501.xml










15.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9351 — DIF/Green Investment Group/Covanta/Dublin Waste-to-energy facility)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 166/02)
On 7 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 32019M9351. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-49/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Financial corrections — Meaning of ‘producer’ — Investments made outside the premises of a producer organisation — Checks carried out before the approval of an operational programme — Check carried out in the authorisation of expenditure — Single financial correction — Flat-rate financial correction — Proportionality — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality








C_2019213EN.01002701.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/27






Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-49/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Financial corrections - Meaning of ‘producer’ - Investments made outside the premises of a producer organisation - Checks carried out before the approval of an operational programme - Check carried out in the authorisation of expenditure - Single financial correction - Flat-rate financial correction - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)
(2019/C 213/25)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Spain (represented initially by V. Ester Casas, abogado del Estado, and subsequently by S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and M. Morales Puerta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016, L 312, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9326 — Saudi Aramco/Total Marketing/Sahel) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fuel, merger control, oil industry, petroleum product, provision of services, retail trade, subsidiary








C_2019247EN.01002402.xml










23.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/24






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9326 — Saudi Aramco/Total Marketing/Sahel)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 247/03)
On 7 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 32019M9326. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-423/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Fissler v EUIPO (vita) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark vita — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Concept of characteristic — Name of a colour — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019213EN.01003401.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/34






Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Fissler v EUIPO (vita)
(Case T-423/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark vita - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Concept of characteristic - Name of a colour - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 213/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fissler GmbH (Idar-Oberstein, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2018 (Case R 1326/2017-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign vita as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 March 2018 (Case R 1326/2017-5);











2.



Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9279 — EPH/Uniper France) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy supply, merger control, renewable energy








C_2019165EN.01000101.xml










14.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9279 — EPH/Uniper France)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 165/01)
On 7 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 32019M9279. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-407/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — WP v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contracts — Decision not to renew — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Equal treatment — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment








C_2019213EN.01003301.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/33






Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — WP v EUIPO
(Case T-407/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contracts - Decision not to renew - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Equal treatment - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint)
(2019/C 213/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: WP (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 refusing a second renewal of the applicant’s temporary staff contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders WP to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019156EN.01000301.xml










7.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 May 2019
(2019/C 156/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1199 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4662 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85470 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7258 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1403 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7905 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,715 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2832 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7555 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,7429 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6021 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5095 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7871 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6936 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5266 




KRW


South Korean won


1 311,18 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2549 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5771 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4124 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 006,17 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6448 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,187 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,9750 




THB


Thai baht


35,730 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4468 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3243 




INR


Indian rupee


77,7325 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-629/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a car in a speech bubble — Admissibility of the action before the Board of Appeal — Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Restriction of the list of goods or services covered by the mark applied for — Article 27(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to adjudicate on a request for restriction)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, provision of services, publisher, registered trade mark, software, sports equipment, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2019230EN.01004601.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/46






Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble)
(Case T-629/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a car in a speech bubble - Admissibility of the action before the Board of Appeal - Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Restriction of the list of goods or services covered by the mark applied for - Article 27(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to adjudicate on a request for restriction)
(2019/C 230/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2018 (Case R 2653/2017-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a car in a speech bubble.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 August 2018 (Case R 2653/2017-4);











2.



Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Case T-239/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Germany v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Germany — Flat-rate financial correction applied due to insufficient frequency of key controls — Obligation to calculate interest and record it in the accounts annually — Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC)No 1290/2005 — Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality








C_2019213EN.01002801.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/28






Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-239/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Germany - Flat-rate financial correction applied due to insufficient frequency of key controls - Obligation to calculate interest and record it in the accounts annually - Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC)No 1290/2005 - Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)
(2019/C 213/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially D. Klebs and T. Henze, and subsequently D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, and M. Zalewski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU)2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 39, p. 12), in so far as it concerns the Federal Republic of Germany.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Case C-431/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/5/EC — Access to the profession of lawyer — Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State — Article 3(2) — Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State — Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State — Refusal to register — Rules of professional conduct — Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer)
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: clergy, equivalence of diplomas, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, lawyer, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment








C_2019230EN.01000401.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon
(Case C-431/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/5/EC - Access to the profession of lawyer - Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State - Article 3(2) - Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State - Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State - Refusal to register - Rules of professional conduct - Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer)
(2019/C 230/04)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil

Defendant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on account of the incompatibility under that legislation between the status of monk and practice of the profession of lawyer, prohibits a lawyer who has the status of monk, and who is registered as a lawyer with the competent authority of the home Member State, from registering with the competent authority of the host Member State in order to practise there under his home-country professional title.


(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Case T-419/18: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, disclosure of information, euro, infringement of EU law, interest, rights of the defence








C_2019230EN.01006501.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/65






Order of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
(Case T-419/18) (1)

(2019/C 230/78)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Case C-363/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Patent- and marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 May 2019 — Konsumentombudsmannen v Mezina AB
Date: 2019-05-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, health policy, human nutrition, labelling, market approval, proof, restriction on competition








C_2019246EN.01001101.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Patent- and marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 May 2019 — Konsumentombudsmannen v Mezina AB
(Case C-363/19)
(2019/C 246/11)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Patent- and marknadsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konsumentombudsmannen

Defendant: Mezina AB

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 5 and 6, read in conjunction with Articles 10(1) and 28(5) of Regulation No 1924/2006, (1) regulate the burden of proof when a national court is determining whether unpermitted health claims have been made in a situation where the health claims in question correspond to a claim covered by an application under Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, but where the application has not yet led to a decision on authorisation or non-authorisation, or is the burden of proof determined according to national law?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is that the provisions of Regulation No 1924/2006 regulate the burden of proof, does the burden of proof lie with the trader making a given health claim or with the authority requesting the national court to prohibit the trader from continuing to make the claim?










3.


In a situation such as that described in question 1, do Articles 5 and 6, read in conjunction with Articles 10(1) and 28(5) of Regulation No 1924/2006, regulate the evidentiary requirements when a national court is determining whether unpermitted health claims are being made, or are the evidentiary requirements determined according to national law?










4.


If the answer to question 3 is that the provisions of Regulation No 1924/2006 regulate the evidentiary requirements, what are the evidentiary requirements imposed?










5.


Is the answer to questions 1–4 affected by the fact that Regulation No 1924/2006 (including Article 3(a) of the regulation) and Directive 2005/29 (2) can be applied together in the proceedings before the national court?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005, L 149, p. 22).