do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Directive 2004/42/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: air quality, atmospheric pollutant, environmental standard, labelling, marketing standard, organic chemical, paints and varnishes








L_2019173EN.01009601.xml










27.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 173/96







Corrigendum to Directive 2004/42/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 143 of 30 April 2004
)


On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 87, in the title:
for:

               ‘Directive 2004/42/CE’,
read:

               ‘Directive 2004/42/EC’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9205 — IBM/Red Hat) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 48/02
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control








C_2020048EN.01000201.xml










12.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9205 — IBM/Red Hat)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 48/02)
On 27 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 32019M9205. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-390/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Muscardini v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019270EN.01005001.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/50






Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Muscardini v Parliament
(Case T-390/19)
(2019/C 270/51)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Cristiana Muscardini (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-389/19 Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament
Case C-348/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) (Preliminary reference — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural quota, dairy production, milk product, production quota








C_2019280EN.01000702.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/7






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)
(Case C-348/18) (1)

(Preliminary reference - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) - Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due - Reallocation of unused reference quantities - National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)
(2019/C 280/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice

Defendant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

In the presence of: Comitato Spontaneo Produttori Latte (COSPLAT), Società Agricola Galleana — Società semplice, VS and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State decides to reallocate unused reference quantities, that reallocation must be made between producers who have exceeded their reference quantities, in proportion to the reference quantities at their disposal.


(1)  OJ C 394, 20.8.2018.
Case T-393/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019280EN.01004301.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/43






Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament
(Case T-393/19)
(2019/C 280/59)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Anna Catasta (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-108/15: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Bundesverband Glasindustrie and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources — Annulment of the act criticised by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy








C_2019295EN.01003101.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/31






Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Bundesverband Glasindustrie and Others v Commission
(Case T-108/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 295/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Bundesverband Glasindustrie (Düsseldorf, Germany) and the other 11 applicants whose names are annexed to the order (represented by: U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, and subsequently by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, and by H. Wollmann, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.











2.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH, successor in title to ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH, and of P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz.











3.



The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Bundesverband Glasindustrie and those of the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex.











4.



ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH, successor in title to ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH, and P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz shall bear their own costs of the applications for leave to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case T-135/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Szegedi v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Travel expenses — Parliamentary assistance expenses — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Rights of defence — Disclosure of evidence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of fact — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2019295EN.01002601.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/26






Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Szegedi v Parliament
(Case T-135/18) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Travel expenses - Parliamentary assistance expenses - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Rights of defence - Disclosure of evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of fact - Proportionality)
(2019/C 295/33)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Csanád Szegedi (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Bodó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, S. Seyr and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 30 November 2017 relating to the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 264 196,11 unduly paid in respect of travel expenses and parliamentary assistance expenses and the related debit note of 19 December 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 30 November 2017 relating to the recovery from Mr Csanád Szegedi of the sum of EUR 264 196,11 and the related debit note of 19 December 2017 in so far as they relate to sums paid in respect of travel expenses in the sum of EUR 8 273,83;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders Mr Szegedi and the European Parliament each to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Case C-518/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — RD v SC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Certification of a judicial decision as a European Enforcement Order — Minimum standards applicable to uncontested claims procedures — Defendant without a known address who did not appear at the hearing)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, claim, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2019280EN.01000901.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — RD v SC
(Case C-518/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Certification of a judicial decision as a European Enforcement Order - Minimum standards applicable to uncontested claims procedures - Defendant without a known address who did not appear at the hearing)
(2019/C 280/10)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RD

Defendant: SC

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court is unable to obtain the defendant’s address, it does not allow a judicial decision relating to a debt, made following a hearing attended by neither the defendant nor the guardian ad litem appointed for the purpose of the proceedings, to be certified as a European Enforcement Order.


(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
EFTA Surveillance Authority notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 June 2019 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2019216EN.01001601.xml










27.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/16






EFTA Surveillance Authority notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 June 2019

(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (1)
)

(2019/C 216/07)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by the Authority’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.6.2019 –


4,93 


-0,53 


1,47 






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9362 — Suez Organique/Avril PA/Terrial) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, economic concentration, fertiliser industry, merger control, oleaginous plant, waste management








C_2019225EN.01002901.xml










5.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/29






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9362 — Suez Organique/Avril PA/Terrial)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 225/02)
On 27 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 French 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 32019M9362. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-103/15: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Flabeg Deutschland v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources — Annulment of the act criticised by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy








C_2019295EN.01003001.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/30






Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Flabeg Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-103/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 295/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Flabeg Deutschland GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented initially by: M. Küper and E.–M. Schwind, and subsequently by: J. Stein and A. Kersten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, and subsequently by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, and by H. Wollmann, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.











2.



The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Flabeg Deutschland GmbH.







(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Case T-737/15: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources — Annulment of the act criticised by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy








C_2019295EN.01003501.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/35






Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products v Commission
(Case T-737/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 295/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and K. Dingemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.











2.



The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH.







(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-268/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Sandrone v EUIPO — J. Garcia Carrion (Luciano Sandrone) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Luciano Sandrone — Earlier EU word mark DON LUCIANO — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Application for an EU word mark consisting of a first name and of a surname — Earlier mark consisting of an honorific title and a first name — Neutrality of the conceptual comparison — No likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, marketing, office supplies, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01005001.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/50






Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Sandrone v EUIPO — J. Garcia Carrion (Luciano Sandrone)
(Case T-268/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Luciano Sandrone - Earlier EU word mark DON LUCIANO - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Application for an EU word mark consisting of a first name and of a surname - Earlier mark consisting of an honorific title and a first name - Neutrality of the conceptual comparison - No likelihood of confusion)
(2019/C 305/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Luciano Sandrone (Barolo, Italy) (represented by: A. Borra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: J. García Carrión, SA (Jumilla, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 (Case R 1207/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between J. García Carrión and Luciano Sandrone.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 February 2018 (Case R 1207/2017-2);











2.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Luciano Sandrone.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.