do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-490/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products








C_2019288EN.01003701.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/37






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS
(Case C-490/19)
(2019/C 288/44)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier

Defendant: Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

Question referred

Must Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 (1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 (2) be interpreted as prohibiting solely the use by a third party of the registered name, or must they be interpreted as prohibiting the presentation of a product protected by a designation of origin, in particular the reproduction of the shape or the appearance which are characteristic of it, which is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product, even if the registered name is not used?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
Opinion (1) of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 26 June 2019 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8179 — Canon/TMSC — Article 14(2) procedure Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation Rapporteur: United Kingdom2019/C 362/03
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Concentrations
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control, sanction (EU)








C_2019362EN.01000301.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/3






Opinion (1) of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 26 June 2019 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8179 — Canon/TMSC — Article 14(2) procedure
Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation
Rapporteur: United Kingdom
(2019/C 362/03)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that Canon partially implemented, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004), its acquisition of control over TMSC by carrying out the Interim Transaction (as defined in the draft decision) prior to its notification to the Commission, which took place on 12 August 2016.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that Canon partially implemented, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004), its acquisition of control over TMSC by carrying out the Interim Transaction (as defined in the draft decision) prior to its notification to the Commission, which took place on 12 August 2016, and prior to its clearance by the Commission, which took place on 19 September 2016.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that Canon has at least negligently infringed Article 4(1) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



4.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that Canon has at least negligently infringed Article 7(1) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



5.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that Canon should be fined pursuant to Article 14(2)(a) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



6.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that Canon should be fined pursuant to Article 14(2)(b) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



7.   

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-489/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against NJ
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, independence of the judiciary, judicial review, public prosecutor's department, separation of powers








C_2019280EN.01003102.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against NJ
(Case C-489/19)
(2019/C 280/43)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Party to the main proceedings

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin
v
NJ

Questions referred

Does the dependence of a public prosecutor's office on instructions prevent him from effectively issuing a European arrest warrant, (1) even if that decision is subject to a full judicial review before the execution of the European arrest warrant?


(1)  See Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case C-495/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2019 – Kancelaria Medius SA, established in Kraków v RN
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, rights of the defence, ruling, unfair terms of contract








C_2019337EN.01000601.xml










7.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2019 – Kancelaria Medius SA, established in Kraków v RN
(Case C-495/19)
(2019/C 337/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kancelaria Medius SA, established in Kraków

Defendant: RN

Question referred

Should Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as precluding procedural rules under which a court may issue a default judgment on the basis merely of an applicant’s statements contained in the application, and which the court is obliged to accept as true, in a case where the defendant (a consumer), who has been duly notified of the date of the hearing, does not appear when summoned and does not mount a defence?


(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-407/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Proper interpretation)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law, judicial review, jurisdiction, mortgage, notary, official document, unfair terms of contract








C_2019280EN.01000801.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/8






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
(Case C-407/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim - Directly enforceable notarial instrument - Judicial review of unfair terms - Suspension of enforcement - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement - Consumer protection - Principle of effectiveness - Proper interpretation)
(2019/C 280/09)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar

Defendants: Addiko Bank d.d.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, in the light of the principle of effectiveness, as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the national court hearing an application for the enforcement of a mortgage loan agreement, concluded between a trader and a consumer in the form of a directly enforceable notarial deed, does not have the possibility, either at the request of the consumer or ex officio, of examining whether the terms contained in such a deed are unfair within the meaning of that Directive and, on that basis, of suspending the requested enforcement.


(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Case C-491/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, arbitration, financial control, financial management, fund (EU), infringement of EU law, jurisdiction, operational programme, public procurement








C_2019348EN.01000401.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház
(Case C-491/19)
(2019/C 348/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma

Respondent: Szent Borbála Kórház

Questions referred







1.


In the legal relationship arising from a subsidy agreement, are the authorities and intermediate bodies of the Member States which are competent to conduct irregularity proceedings at first or second tier empowered to examine directly in the course of the proceedings before them, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (‘the Regulation’), (1) and in particular as part of the control mechanism provided for in Articles 60, 70 and 98 thereof, any infringement that has or may have an impact prejudicial to the financial interests of the budget of the European Union, and are they obliged, if necessary, to apply a financial correction?










2.


Is the protection of the financial interests of the European Union effectively guaranteed by national procedural legislation, or by the case-law interpreting it, which, in the case of a subsidy agreement, allows a breach of that agreement consisting in an infringement of public procurement legislation (an irregularity) to be established, and any civil claim based on the establishment of that infringement to be asserted, only where a final declaration as to the existence of that infringement has been made by the Arbitration Committee or, following a judicial review of the decision of the Arbitration Committee, by a court?










3.


If the infringement of public procurement legislation constitutes an irregularity but proceedings have not been instituted before the Arbitration Committee, is the court hearing the civil claims relating to compliance with the subsidy agreement empowered to assess the irregularity in the public procurement process in the course of examining the breach of the agreement?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.
Opinion (2) of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 26 June 2019 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8179 — Canon/TMSC — Article 14(2) procedure Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation Rapporteur: United Kingdom2019/C 362/04
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Concentrations
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control, sanction (EU)








C_2019362EN.01000401.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/4






Opinion (2) of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 26 June 2019 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8179 — Canon/TMSC — Article 14(2) procedure
Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation
Rapporteur: United Kingdom
(2019/C 362/04)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (6 Member States) agrees with the factors taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of determining the level of the fine to be imposed on Canon pursuant to Article 14(2)(a) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



2.   

The Advisory Committee (6 Member States) agrees with the factors taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of determining the level of the fine to be imposed on Canon pursuant to Article 14(2)(b) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



3.   

The Advisory Committee (6 Member States) agrees with the actual level of the fine proposed by the Commission pursuant to Article 14(2)(a) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



4.   

The Advisory Committee (6 Member States) agrees with the actual level of the fine proposed by the Commission pursuant to Article 14(2)(b) of the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004).



5.   

The Advisory Committee (6 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Joined Cases T-117/18 to T-121/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH) (EU trade mark — Applications for the EU word marks 200 PANORAMICZNYCH, 300 PANORAMICZNYCH, 400 PANORAMICZNYCH, 500 PANORAMICZNYCH and 1000 PANORAMICZNYCH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 — No misuse of powers)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, serial publication, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01004801.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/48






Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)
(Joined Cases T-117/18 to T-121/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Applications for the EU word marks 200 PANORAMICZNYCH, 300 PANORAMICZNYCH, 400 PANORAMICZNYCH, 500 PANORAMICZNYCH and 1000 PANORAMICZNYCH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No misuse of powers)
(2019/C 305/57)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

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

Re:

Actions brought against five decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Cases R 2194/2016-5, R 2195/2016-5, R 2200/2016-5, R 2201/2016-5 and R 2208/2016-5), regarding applications for registration of the word signs 200 PANORAMICZNYCH, 300 PANORAMICZNYCH, 400 PANORAMICZNYCH, 500 PANORAMICZNYCH and 1000 PANORAMICZNYCH as EU trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the actions;











2.



Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs, including those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Case C-247/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Social Fund (ESF) — Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 39 — Supervisory powers — Necessary verifications — Financial corrections — Calculation — Method by extrapolation)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Social Fund, Sicily, eligibility criteria, operational programme, regional aid








C_2019280EN.01000701.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission
(Case C-247/18) (1)

(Appeal - European Social Fund (ESF) - Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 39 - Supervisory powers - Necessary verifications - Financial corrections - Calculation - Method by extrapolation)
(2019/C 280/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Other Party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Operative part

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.