do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








C_2019212EN.01000201.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/2






Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission
(2019/C 212/02)
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






i.


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2));










ii.


made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published; and










iii.


made available through the Article 36 Search Tool to the organisations, providing contact details and the organisations’ specific fields of competence.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, under the following links:






i.


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on [19/06/2019] — [http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/190619-1];










ii.


the updated list of competent organisations — http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/art36listg.pdf; and










iii.


Article 36 Search Tool — http://www.efsa.europa.eu/art36/search




EFSA will keep this notification updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.
Case T-376/19: Action brought on 24 June 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, distance selling, electrical engineering, engine, machine tool, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2019263EN.01007201.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/72






Action brought on 24 June 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)
(Case T-376/19)
(2019/C 263/77)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Bang, trgovina in storitve, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY — Application for registration No 15 879 323

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1684/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the present action for annulment and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division (opposition B 2 840 414) by which EU trade mark No 15 879 323 was refused only in respect of the goods and services in the Classes to which the opposition related (7, 9, 11, 16, 35 and 42) with the exception of the following goods in Class 7 which are also granted: ‘machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated; incubators for eggs; automatic vending machines’; and










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-619/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges — Application to judges in post — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond that age subject to obtaining authorisation granted by discretionary decision of the President of the Republic)
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discretionary power, head of State, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, judge, retirement conditions, right to justice, rule of law








C_2019280EN.01000902.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/9






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-619/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law - Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence - Lowering of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges - Application to judges in post - Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond that age subject to obtaining authorisation granted by discretionary decision of the President of the Republic)
(2019/C 280/11)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, H. Krämer and S.L. Kalėda, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Majcher and S. Żyrek)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, first, by providing that the measure consisting in lowering the retirement age of the judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) is to apply to judges in post who were appointed to that court before 3 April 2018 and, secondly, by granting the President of the Republic the discretion to extend the period of judicial activity of judges of that court beyond the newly fixed retirement age, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;










3.


Declares that Hungary is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case T-151/18: Action brought on 24 June 2019 — VK v Council
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Tunisia, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2019263EN.01004901.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/49






Action brought on 24 June 2019 — VK v Council
(Case T-151/18)
(2019/C 263/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VK (represented by: K. Lara, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 38) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/135 of 28 January 2019 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2019 L 25, p. 23), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31, 46 and 55 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The applicant claims in that regard that, in accordance with those provisions, a protective freezing and confiscation measure must be based on either a decision of the requesting State Party or a statement of relevant facts made by that same State Party with a description of the measures requested. According to the applicant, the restrictive measures were ordered and extended without even a brief statement of the facts complained of. In addition, Tunisia does not seek the maintenance of the restrictive measures at issue.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment when it considered that it did not have to take into account the evidence produced by the applicant and the arguments developed by him or make further enquiries of the Tunisian authorities, whereas that evidence and those arguments were such as to raise legitimate questions regarding the reliability of the information provided.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Council in that it is complicit with the Tunisian authorities the sole purpose of which is to justify the unfair and unlawful dispossession of the applicant’s property without the applicant having been able to defend himself and without any means of redress.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9404 — Goldman Sachs/B&amp;B Hotels) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2019212EN.01000301.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9404 — Goldman Sachs/B&B Hotels)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 212/03)

1.   
On 17 June 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:






—


The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs,’ USA),










—


Financière Sun SAS (‘Financière Sun,’ France), operating the B&B Hotels chain, controlled by PAI Partners.




Goldman Sachs acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Financière Sun, the owner of the B&B Hotels chain.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Goldman Sachs: a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm. One of Goldman Sachs’ controlled portfolio companies is K+K Hotels, a boutique hotel company that operates ten hotels in eight cities in the EU: Munich, Vienna, Prague, Barcelona, London, Paris, Budapest and Bucharest,
—   for Financière Sun: operates the B&B Hotels chain. B&B Hotels is a French hotel company headquartered in Brest, France, with a portfolio of 476 hotels in ten EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain), and in Switzerland and Brazil.


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.9404 — Goldman Sachs/B&B Hotels
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-476/18: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, travel








C_2020010EN.01002701.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/27






Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.
(Case C-476/18) (1)

(2020/C 10/36)
Language of the case: Hungarian
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Case C-480/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 June 2019 —Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, UCITS fund, capital movement, investment abroad, securities, taxable income








C_2019295EN.01000602.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 June 2019 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö
(Case C-480/19)
(2019/C 295/10)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: E

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Question referred

Are Articles 63 and 65 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national interpretation according to which income received by a natural person residing in Finland from an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities based in another Member State of the Union and constituted in accordance with statute within the meaning of the Investment Fund Directive 2009/65/EC (1) (UCITS fund in the form of an investment company) is not, for the purposes of income tax, treated in the same way as income received from a Finnish investment fund constituted in accordance with contract law within the meaning of the same Directive (UCITS fund in contract form), because the legal form of the UCITS located in the other Member State does not correspond to the legal structure of the national investment fund?


(1)  Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32).
Case C-573/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decisions — Lack of direct effect — Primacy of EU law — Consequences — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 4(6) — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 28(2) — Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 — Late declaration — Consequences)
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, direct applicability, primacy of EU law








C_2019280EN.01000201.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/2






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski
(Case C-573/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decisions - Lack of direct effect - Primacy of EU law - Consequences - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 4(6) - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 28(2) - Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 - Late declaration - Consequences)
(2019/C 280/02)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Daniel Adam Popławski

Other party: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a declaration made pursuant to that provision by a Member State, after that framework decision was adopted, is not capable of producing legal effects.










2.


The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which enables them to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the objective pursued by the framework decision concerned.






(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019212EN.01000101.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 June 2019
(2019/C 212/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1316 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4657 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89425 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6308 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1107 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6860 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,609 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2584 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7239 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5806 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6386 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4928 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8424 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7261 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5362 




KRW


South Korean won


1 314,41 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2178 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7792 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4013 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 987,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7002 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,253 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,5191 




THB


Thai baht


34,859 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3357 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5698 




INR


Indian rupee


78,6985 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-482/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 24 June 2019 — JF, KG v Bankia SA
Date: 2019-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer protection, debt, legal expenses, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2019328EN.01001701.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 24 June 2019 — JF, KG v Bankia SA
(Case C-482/19)
(2019/C 328/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: JF, KG

Defendant: Bankia SA

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.