do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bulgaria, Jordan, Mediterranean region (EU), Romania, Union for the Mediterranean, accession to the European Union, association agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement








L_2019154EN.01003001.xml










12.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 154/30







Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union

The above mentioned Protocol between the European Union and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan entered into force on 1 April 2019.
Case C-448/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, offence, removal, residence permit, third country








C_2019328EN.01001201.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara
(Case C-448/19)
(2019/C 328/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WT

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara

Question referred

Is an interpretation such as that set out in judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court No 191/2019 of 19 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5607/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:580), and No 257/2019 of 27 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5809/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:663), according to which, through an interpretation of Directive 2001/40/EC, (1) it is possible to come to the conclusion that any third-country national holding a long-term residence permit who has committed an offence punishable by a sentence of at least one year in duration can and should be ‘automatically’ removed, that is to say, without needing to give any consideration to his personal, family, social or employment circumstances, compatible with Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, (2) and with — inter alia — the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 7 December 2017 (Case C-636/16) and of 8 December 2011 (Case C-371/08)?


(1)  Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (OJ 2001 L 149, p. 34).

(2)  OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.
Case T-291/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Biedermann Technologies v EUIPO (Compliant Constructs) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Compliant Constructs — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, surgery, trade-mark law, veterinary medicine








C_2019263EN.01004402.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/44






Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Biedermann Technologies v EUIPO (Compliant Constructs)
(Case T-291/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Compliant Constructs - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 263/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (Donaueschingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 1626/2017-4) relating to an application for registration of the word sign Compliant Constructs as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9350 — Santander Group/Mapfre Group/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 347/02
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Treasury, banking, economic concentration, insurance, investment company, merger control








C_2020347EN.01000201.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9350 — Santander Group/Mapfre Group/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 347/02)
On 12 June 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 32019M9350. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-346/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Advance Magazine Publishers v EUIPO — Enovation Brands (VOGUE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark VOGUE — Earlier EU word mark VOGA — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019263EN.01004501.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/45






Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Advance Magazine Publishers v EUIPO — Enovation Brands (VOGUE)
(Case T-346/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VOGUE - Earlier EU word mark VOGA - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)
(2019/C 263/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister, and N. Hine, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Enovation Brands, Inc. (Aventura, Florida, United States) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2018 (Case R 259/2017-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Enovation Brands and Advance Magazine Publishers.

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 27 March 2018 (Case R 259/2017-4).











2.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.











3.



Orders Enovation Brands, Inc. to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9324 — ALSO/ABC Data Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 418/03
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications equipment, wholesale trade








C_2020418EN.01000301.xml










3.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 418/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9324 — ALSO/ABC Data Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 418/03)
On 12 June 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 32019M9324. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-455/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — BX v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, legal expenses, mortgage, unfair terms of contract








C_2019328EN.01001401.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — BX v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-455/19)
(2019/C 328/15)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BX

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, the following ruling is compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation.
And whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law, it is compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement.










2.


Also, whether, as regards Article 394 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure), which establishes the principle that the costs of proceedings are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, it can be held that where an unfair expenses clause is declared void but the effects of voiding the term are limited to apportioning the expenses in question, it is contrary to the EU legal principles of effectiveness and the non-binding nature of unfair terms to conclude that a claim has been upheld in part, and whether such a conclusion could be interpreted as producing an inverse deterrent effect, which thus fails to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and users.






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-185/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Oro Efectivo SL v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 401 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content with a view to resale — Duty on transfers of assets)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, indirect tax, precious metal, purchase








C_2019263EN.01001302.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/13






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Oro Efectivo SL v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia
(Case C-185/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 401 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content with a view to resale - Duty on transfers of assets)
(2019/C 263/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Oro Efectivo SL

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule of law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects to an indirect tax on asset transfers, other than value added tax, the acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content, where those assets are intended for use in the economic activities of that undertaking, which, with a view to their being processed and placed back on the market, resells them to undertakings specialising in the manufacture of ingots or a variety of items made from precious metals.


(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.