do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-398/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2019 — BY
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, extradition, public prosecution, third country








C_2019288EN.01002401.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2019 — BY
(Case C-398/19)
(2019/C 288/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Person whose surrender is sought: BY

Other party: General Prosecutor’s Office in Berlin

Questions referred







1.


Do the principles resulting from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2016 in the Petruhhin case (C-182/15) (1) in relation to the application of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU in the case where a third country requests the extradition of a Union citizen also apply if the individual sought moved his centre of interest to the requested Member State at a time when he was not yet a Union citizen?










2.


Is the home Member State that has been informed of an extradition request obliged, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2016 in the Petruhhin case (C-182/15), to request that the requesting third country provide the case files for the purpose of examining whether to take over the prosecution?










3.


Is a Member State that has been requested by a third country to extradite a Union citizen obliged, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2016 in the Petruhhin case (C-182/15), to refuse extradition and to take over the criminal prosecution itself if it is possible for it to do so under its national law?






(1)  EU:C:2016:630.
Case T-222/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Recylex and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for lead-acid car battery recycling — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Coordination of purchase prices — Fines — Point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice — Point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, electricity storage device, inter-company agreement, jurisdiction, price agreement, recycled product, sanction (EU), vehicle parts, waste recycling








C_2019246EN.01001701.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/17






Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Recylex and Others v Commission
(Case T-222/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for lead-acid car battery recycling - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Coordination of purchase prices - Fines - Point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice - Point 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2019/C 246/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Recylex SA (Paris, France), Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA (Brussels, Belgium), Harz-Metall GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: M. Wellinger, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rogalski, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA and Harz-Metall GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU)








C_2019177EN.01005501.xml










23.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/55






Notice of open competition
(2019/C 177/05)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AD/373/19 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 177 A of 23 May 2019.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case T-364/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Arçelik v EUIPO (MicroGarden) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MicroGarden — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, electronic equipment, hand tool, household electrical appliance, industrial robot, lighting equipment, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019238EN.01001801.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/18






Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Arçelik v EUIPO (MicroGarden)
(Case T-364/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MicroGarden - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 238/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Arçelik AS (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: A. Franke and E. Flach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska, S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2018 (Case R 163/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign MicroGarden as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Arçelik AS to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case T-107/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Involvement of the private sector — Collective action clauses — Mandatory exchange of Greek bonds — Private creditors — Opinion of the ECB — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Principle of pacta sunt servanda — Article 17(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 63(1) TFEU — Article 124 TFUE)
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, bond, central bank, claim, economic policy, financial loss, redemption of public debt, rule of law








C_2019230EN.01003001.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/30






Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB
(Case T-107/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek public debt - Involvement of the private sector - Collective action clauses - Mandatory exchange of Greek bonds - Private creditors - Opinion of the ECB - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Principle of pacta sunt servanda - Article 17(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 63(1) TFEU - Article 124 TFUE)
(2019/C 230/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Frank Steinhoff (Hamburg, Germany), Ewald Filbry, (Dortmund, Germany), Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG (Gräfenberg, Germany), Werner Bäcker (Rodgau, Germany), EMB Consulting SE (Mühltal, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner and D. Unrau, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: O. Heinz and G. Várhelyi, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking restitution of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants due to the fact that the ECB failed, in its Opinion of 17 February 2012 (CON/2012/12), to draw the attention of the Republic of Greece to the unlawful nature of the proposed restructuring of the Greek public debt by a mandatory exchange of bonds.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Frank Steinhoff, Mr Ewald Filbry, Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG, Mr Werner Bäcker and EMB Consulting SE to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9328 — Platinum Equity Group/Multi-Color Corporation) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: business administration, business management, economic concentration, labelling, merger control








C_2019177EN.01005801.xml










23.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/58






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9328 — Platinum Equity Group/Multi-Color Corporation)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 177/07)

1.   
On 8 May 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:






—


Platinum Equity Group (United States),










—


Multi-Color Corporation (United States).




Platinum Equity Group (‘Platinum Equity’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Multi-Color Corporation (‘MCC’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Platinum Equity: merger, acquisition and operation of companies that provide services and solutions to customers in a broad range of businesses, including information technology, telecommunication, logistics, metal services, manufacturing and distribution,
—   for MCC: manufacture and supply of labels to commercial customers across a range of sectors, including: home and personal care, food and beverage, healthcare, specialty, consumer durables, and wine and spirits.


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.9328 — Platinum Equity Group/Multi-Color Corporation
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-404/19P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2019 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-26/18 France v Commission
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Corsica, EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, less-favoured agricultural area, single payment scheme








C_2019238EN.01001201.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/12






Appeal brought on 23 May 2019 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-26/18 France v Commission
(Case C-404/19P)
(2019/C 238/16)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, in Case T-26/18, France v Commission;










—


Give final judgment in the matter by annulling Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 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) (1), in so far as it imposes on France a flat-rate correction of 100 % on account of deficiencies in the control system for area aid in Haute-Corse;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Government asks the Court to set aside in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismisses its action with regard to the part of the contested decision which concerns the ‘Control system gravely deficient Corse’ for the years 2013 and 2014, in that it applies a flat-rate correction of 100 % on account of deficiencies in the control system for area aid in Haute-Corse.
In support of its appeal, the French Government relies on a single ground of appeal alleging error of law. It is submitted that the General Court relied on an erroneous interpretation of the conditions provided for in point 3.2.5 of the 2015 guidelines for setting a correction rate higher than 25 %. It is claimed that the General Court confused the evidence to be adduced in the situation where the grant of aid is devoid of any legal basis or misinterprets rules of EU law, and the case where the deficiencies in the control system are sufficiently grave as to allow it to be assumed that the aid has been granted in breach of EU law. The General Court therefore wrongly held that the exclusion of all expenditure from EU funding was justified and that the flat-rate correction of 100 % was well founded.


(1)  OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61.
Case C-720/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum policy — Subsidiary protection — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 19 — Revocation of subsidiary protection status — Error on the part of the administrative authorities with respect to the facts)
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, asylum seeker, foreign national, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2019263EN.01000901.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl
(Case C-720/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Subsidiary protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 19 - Revocation of subsidiary protection status - Error on the part of the administrative authorities with respect to the facts)
(2019/C 263/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mohammed Bilali

Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Article 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must revoke subsidiary protection status if it granted that status when the conditions for granting it were not met, in reliance on facts which have subsequently been revealed to be incorrect, and notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned cannot be accused of having misled the Member State on that occasion.


(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019177EN.01000101.xml










23.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 May 2019
(2019/C 177/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1171 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,27 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4680 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88280 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7600 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1252 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7598 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,793 




HUF


Hungarian forint


326,54 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3038 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7625 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,8110 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6221 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4952 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7692 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7173 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5399 




KRW


South Korean won


1 329,30 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0504 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7108 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4260 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 225,88 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6756 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,610 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,7625 




THB


Thai baht


35,686 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5163 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2345 




INR


Indian rupee


77,8600 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-105/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Serron — Greece) — WP v Trapeza Peiraios AE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Powers and obligations of the national court — Order for payment procedure — Granting of the application to have that order set aside — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, appeal, consumer credit, consumer protection, injunction, unfair terms of contract








C_2019288EN.01001101.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/11






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Serron — Greece) — WP v Trapeza Peiraios AE
(Case C-105/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Powers and obligations of the national court - Order for payment procedure - Granting of the application to have that order set aside - Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2019/C 288/13)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Serron

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WP

Defendant: Trapeza Peiraios AE

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Serron (Court of First Instance (single judge) of Serres, Greece), by decision of 11 January 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Bad faith)
Date: 2019-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019230EN.01003401.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/34






Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR)
(Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Bad faith)
(2019/C 230/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco and A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner, E. Preston, Solicitors, and P. Roberts, QC)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 and of 8 November 2017 (Cases R 2370/2016-2 and R 2371/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Annco and Holzer y Cia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the actions;











2.



Orders Holzer y Cia, SA de CV to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Annco, Inc.







(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.