do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-8/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers — Breach of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of the defence — Jurisdiction of the Commission — Geographic scope of the infringement — Single and continuous infringement — Principle of good administration — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, disc drive, optical medium, public procurement, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2019328EN.01003801.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/38






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission
(Case T-8/16) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers - Breach of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of the defence - Jurisdiction of the Commission - Geographic scope of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Principle of good administration - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
(2019/C 328/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (Suwon-si, South Korea) (represented initially by M. Bay, J. Ruiz Calzado, A. Aresu and A. Scordamaglia-Tousis, and subsequently by M. Bay, J. Ruiz Calzado and A. Aresu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, A. Biolan and M. Farley, and subsequently by A. Biolan, M. Farley and A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, Agents,)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in whole or in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Case T-504/19: Action brought on 12 July 2019 — Crédit Lyonnais v ECB
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, financial supervision, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2019312EN.01004101.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/41






Action brought on 12 July 2019 — Crédit Lyonnais v ECB
(Case T-504/19)
(2019/C 312/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Crédit Lyonnais (Lyon, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 adopted by the ECB on 3 May 2019, in so far as it refuses to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio 34 % of its exposures to the Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘the CDC’);










—


order the ECB to pay all 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 Article 266 TFEU and of the force of res judicata of the General Court’s judgment. The applicant submits that, by basing its decision on grounds which have already been examined and dismissed by the General Court in the judgment of 13 July 2018, Crédit agricole v ECB (T-758/16, EU:T:2018:472) and by continuing to highlight a theoretical risk of default by the French State and a risk of catastrophic sale of assets without demonstrating the cogency of those allegations, the European Central Bank infringed Article 266 TFEU and res judicata.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 429(14) and of Article 400(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) and, second, the misuse of powers by the ECB. The applicant considers that, by basing its decision on the existence of a concentration risk on the Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘the CDC’) to entirely refuse to exclude the Crédit Lyonnais (‘LCL’) exposures to CDC from its leverage ratio, the ECB imposes a prudential requirement on LCL in respect of the concentration on sovereign exposures which Article 400(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 does not allow it to impose and uses its powers under Article 429(14) of the that regulation for purposes other than those provided for in that Article.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the ECB by persisting in failing to take into account the specific characteristics of regulated savings, thereby breaching its obligation to examine, with care and impartiality, all the relevant elements of the case at hand and to draw the necessary conclusions from it. The applicant considers that in so doing the ECB also makes a manifest error of assessment of the prudential risks relating to regulated savings.
Case T-698/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — MAN Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MANDO — Earlier international and national figurative marks MAN — Earlier national word mark Man — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, miscellaneous industries, optical industry, plastics industry, registered trade mark, rubber industry, special chemicals, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2019305EN.01004101.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/41






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — MAN Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO)
(Case T-698/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MANDO - Earlier international and national figurative marks MAN - Earlier national word mark Man - Relative ground for refusal - No 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 305/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MAN Truck & Bus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, and subsequently by J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Halla Holdings Corp. (Yongin-si, South Korea) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch and C. de Haas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2017 (Case R 1919/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MAN Truck & Bus and Halla Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2017 (Case R 1919/2016-1) to the extent that it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the word mark MANDO and the earlier international registration No 863 418 of the figurative mark MAN.











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder.











3.



Orders each party to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Case T-94/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Binca Seafoods v Commission (Production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — Prohibition of hormones — Non-renewal of the transitional period concerning aquaculture animals provided for in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 — Methods of reproduction — Exceptional authorisation to collect wild aquaculture juveniles for on-growing purposes — Equal treatment)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, aquaculture, eco-label, equal treatment, hormone, organic product








C_2019305EN.01003101.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/31






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Binca Seafoods v Commission
(Case T-94/15 RENV) (1)

(Production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - Prohibition of hormones - Non-renewal of the transitional period concerning aquaculture animals provided for in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 - Methods of reproduction - Exceptional authorisation to collect wild aquaculture juveniles for on-growing purposes - Equal treatment)
(2019/C 305/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, G. von Rintelen and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).

Operative part of the judgment







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Binca Seafoods GmbH is ordered to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.







(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
Case T-309/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Optile v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Article 107 TFEU — Article 108 TFEU — Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Limitation period — Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, investment aid, public transport, regional aid, restriction on competition, transport company








C_2019328EN.01004301.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/43






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Optile v Commission
(Case T-309/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)
(2019/C 328/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Organisation professionnelle des transports d’Île de France (Optile) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Thiriez and M. Dangibeaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the application;











2.



Orders the Organisation professionnelle des transports d’Île de France (Optile) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019235EN.01000501.xml










12.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 July 2019
(2019/C 235/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1285 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,94 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4673 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89790 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5808 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1114 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6323 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,605 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,83 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2681 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7340 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3917 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6154 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4735 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8264 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6889 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5288 




KRW


South Korean won


1 324,03 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6500 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7477 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3940 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 872,35 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6443 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,803 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,9968 




THB


Thai baht


34,549 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2169 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,5886 




INR


Indian rupee


77,1495 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-738/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — STIF-IDF v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 — Investment subsidies awarded by the STIF-IDF — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Advantage — Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations — Article 107(1), TFEU — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Ile-de-France, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, investment aid, public transport, regional aid, restriction on competition, transport company








C_2019328EN.01004501.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/45






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — STIF-IDF v Commission
(Case T-738/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the STIF-IDF - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Advantage - Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations - Article 107(1), TFEU - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 328/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syndicat Transport Île de France (STIF-IDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and C. Rydzynski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the application.











2.



Orders Syndicat Transport Île de France (STIF-IDF) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case T-331/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Steifer v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Pension entitlement acquired before entry into service of the EU — Transfer to the EU scheme — Grant of additional seniority — Reimbursement of the amount of pension entitlement not taken into account in the scheme for the calculation of annuities of pension of the EU — No new and substantial facts — No excusable error — Liability — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, European official, damages, seniority, transfer of pension rights








C_2019328EN.01004401.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/44






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Steifer v EESC
(Case T-331/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Pension entitlement acquired before entry into service of the EU - Transfer to the EU scheme - Grant of additional seniority - Reimbursement of the amount of pension entitlement not taken into account in the scheme for the calculation of annuities of pension of the EU - No new and substantial facts - No excusable error - Liability - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 328/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Guy Steifer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino and L. Camarena Januzec, acting and Agents, assisted by M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, to annul the decision of 21 October 2002 of the Director of Human and Financial Resources of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request of 2 October 2002 for reimbursement, together with applicable interest, of the part of his Belgian pension rights not credited on transfer to the EU pension scheme and Decision No 360/03 A of that Director of 15 December 2003 fixing the applicant’s entitlement to a retirement pension, second, to order the EESC to reimburse the applicant the amount of the periodic annuity payments paid by the Belgian National Pensions Office to the EESC since 1 January 2004 as a result of the transfer of his pension rights and to reimburse the applicant each month the amount of the periodic annuity payments to be paid in the future and, third, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of one of the grounds of that decision by which the Director wrongly informed him that he had no right to a Belgian pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action as inadmissible;











2.



Orders Guy Steifer to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case T-763/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers — Infringement by object — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, disc drive, optical medium, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), tendering








C_2019305EN.01003401.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/34






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission
(Case T-763/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Infringement by object - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
(2019/C 305/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sony Optiarc, Inc. (Atsugi, Japan) and Sony Optiarc America, Inc. (San Jose, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Farley, A. Biolan, C. Giolito, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, and subsequently by M. Farley, F. van Schaik, L. Wildpanner and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Sony Optiarc, Inc. and Sony Optiarc America, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.