do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Regulation No 83 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements [2019/253] (OJ L 45, 15.2.2019)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Subjects: air quality, approval, engine, motor fuel, motor vehicle, technical specification, technical standard








L_2019162EN.01002701.xml










19.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 162/27







Corrigendum to Regulation No 83 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements [2019/253]

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 45 of 15 February 2019
)


On page 2, point 1.1:
for:


                  ‘This Regulation shall apply to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg (1).
At the manufacturer's request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles mentioned above to special purpose vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 regardless of their reference mass. The manufacturer shall demonstrate to the Type Approval Authority which granted the type approval that the vehicle in question is a special purpose vehicle.’,

read:


                  ‘This Regulation shall apply to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg (1).
At the manufacturer's request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles mentioned above to M1, M2, N1 and N2 vehicles with a reference mass not exceeding 2 840 kg and which meet the conditions laid down in this Regulation.
At the manufacturer's request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles mentioned above to special purpose vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 regardless of their reference mass. The manufacturer shall demonstrate to the Type Approval Authority which granted the type approval that the vehicle in question is a special purpose vehicle.’.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2019/1113 of 19 June 2019 on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/1/2019)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Central African Republic, EU military mission, appointment of members, military cooperation, military personnel, military training








L_2019176EN.01000401.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 176/4








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2019/1113
of 19 June 2019
         
on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/1/2019)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/610 of 19 April 2016 on a European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (1), and in particular Article 5(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


By means of Decision (CFSP) 2016/610, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty on European Union, to take the relevant decisions concerning the political control and strategic direction of EUTM RCA, including decisions on the appointment of subsequent EU Mission Force Commanders.












(2)


On 19 December 2017, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/2439 (2), appointing Brigadier General Hermínio TEODORO MAIO as the EU Mission Force Commander of EUTM RCA.












(3)


On 15 May 2019, the European Union Military Committee recommended the approval of the nomination of Brigadier General Éric PELTIER to succeed Brigadier General Hermínio TEODORO MAIO as the EU Mission Force Commander of EUTM RCA as from 8 July 2019.












(4)


In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Brigadier General Éric PELTIER is hereby appointed as the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) as from 8 July 2019.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 19 June 2019.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMERSBERGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 104, 20.4.2016, p. 21.

(2)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2017/2439 of 19 December 2017 on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/4/2017) (OJ L 344, 23.12.2017, p. 40).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9388 — Clearlake Capital Group/Francisco Partners Management/Perforce Software Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 347/04
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020347EN.01000401.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9388 — Clearlake Capital Group/Francisco Partners Management/Perforce Software Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 347/04)
On 19 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 32019M9388. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-182/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER DUO — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01003901.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/39






Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)
(Case T-182/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DUO - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2916/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case T-181/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01003801.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/38






Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)
(Case T-181/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case C-607/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corporation tax — Group of companies — Freedom of establishment — Deduction of losses of a non-resident subsidiary — Concept of ‘final losses’ — Merger-absorption of the subsidiary by the parent company — Legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary granting the deduction of losses in the context of a merger solely to the entity sustaining those losses)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: loss, merger, nationality of legal persons, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2019270EN.01000501.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/5






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB
(Case C-607/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Corporation tax - Group of companies - Freedom of establishment - Deduction of losses of a non-resident subsidiary - Concept of ‘final losses’ - Merger-absorption of the subsidiary by the parent company - Legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary granting the deduction of losses in the context of a merger solely to the entity sustaining those losses)
(2019/C 270/05)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Memira Holding AB

Operative part of the judgment







1.


For the purposes of the assessment of the finality of the losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, EU:C:2005:763), the fact that the subsidiary’s Member State of establishment does not allow the losses of one company to be transferred, in the event of a merger, to another company liable for corporation tax, whereas such a transfer is provided for by the Member State in which the parent company is established in the event of a merger between resident companies, is not decisive, unless the parent company demonstrates that it is impossible for it to deduct those losses by ensuring, in particular by means of a sale, that they are fiscally taken into account by a third party for future tax periods;










2.


If the fact referred to in the first question becomes relevant, the fact that there is, in the State of establishment of the subsidiary, no other entity which could have deducted those losses in the event of a merger if such a deduction had been authorised is irrelevant.






(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Case T-179/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01003602.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/36






Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)
(Case T-179/16 RENV) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2905/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9338 — Primonial/Samsung SRA/Building Lumière) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 343/08
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2020343EN.01001201.xml










15.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/12






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9338 — Primonial/Samsung SRA/Building Lumière)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 343/08)
On 19 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 32019M9338. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-478/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2019 — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, investment company, mortgage, registration tax, right of establishment, tax relief








C_2019357EN.01000901.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2019 — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-478/19)
(2019/C 357/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Does EU law — in particular the provisions of the Treaty concerning freedom of establishment and free movement of capital, as interpreted by the Court — preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 35(10-ter) of Decree Law No 223/2006 (in so far as it grants relief on mortgage registration tax and the Land Registry fee only in respect of closed-end real estate investment funds)?
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, corrosion, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2019208EN.01000301.xml










19.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 208/3






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 208/03)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation numbers


Authorised uses


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 4125


12 June 2019


sodium dichromate, (EC No 234-190-3 and CAS No 10588-01-9 (anhydrous); CAS No 7789-12-0 (dihydrate))


H&R Ölwerke Schindler GmbH, Neuhöfer Brückenstr., 127-152, 21107, Hamburg, Germany


REACH/19/18/0


Use of sodium dichromate as corrosion inhibitor in ammonia absorption deep cooling systems, applied for the dewaxing and deoiling process steps of petroleum raffinate


12 June 2031


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies




H&R Chemisch-Pharmazeutische Spezialitäten GmbH, Neuenkirchener Strasse 8, 48499, Salzbergen, Germany


REACH/19/18/1






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019208EN.01000101.xml










19.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 208/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 June 2019
(2019/C 208/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1187 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,08 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4672 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89403 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6413 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1175 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7795 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,609 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,31 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2592 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7232 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5320 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6349 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5016 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7643 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7192 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5338 




KRW


South Korean won


1 325,56 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3782 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7486 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4055 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 022,58 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6778 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,261 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,8787 




THB


Thai baht


35,043 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3313 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3935 




INR


Indian rupee


78,0005 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-465/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2019 — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC
Date: 2019-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, distance selling, termination of a contract, trade event








C_2019348EN.01000202.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2019 — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC
(Case C-465/19)
(2019/C 348/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Straubing

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH

Defendant: GC

Question referred

Does an off-premises contract within the meaning of Article 2(8)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU, (1) with the consequence of entailing a right of withdrawal pursuant to Article 9 of the directive, arise if a trader at a trade fair who is in or in front of a sales stand that is deemed to constitute business premises within the meaning of Article 2(9) of the directive solicits a consumer who is standing in the aisle in front of the sales stand in an exhibition hall at a consumer trade fair without communicating with the trader, and the contract is subsequently concluded in the sales stand?


(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).