do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 1 August 2019 in Case E-7/18 Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon) v AtB AS (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Claim for compensation for the loss of profit — Gravity of the breach — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)2019/C 378/07
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, damage, equal treatment, indemnification, supplies contract, tendering, works contract








C_2019378EN.01000801.xml










7.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/8






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 1 August 2019
in Case E-7/18
Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon)
v
AtB AS

(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Claim for compensation for the loss of profit — Gravity of the breach — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

(2019/C 378/07)
In Case E-7/18, Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon) v AtB AS — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, and in particular Article 2(1)(c) thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Bernd Hammermann and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 1 August 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:
Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts does not require that any breach of the rules governing public procurement in itself is sufficient to award damages for the loss of profit to persons harmed by an infringement.
Case C-589/19 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-182/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01001602.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/16






Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-182/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
(Case C-589/19 P)
(2020/C 77/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot
By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Case C-588/19 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-181/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01001601.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/16






Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-181/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
(Case C-588/19 P)
(2020/C 77/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot
By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Case C-587/19 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-180/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01001502.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/15






Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-180/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
(Case C-587/19 P)
(2020/C 77/22)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot
By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Case C-590/19 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-183/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01001701.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/17






Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-183/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
(Case C-590/19 P)
(2020/C 77/25)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot
By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Case C-586/19 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-179/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01001501.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/15






Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-179/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot
(Case C-586/19 P)
(2020/C 77/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot
By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019258EN.01000801.xml










1.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

31 July 2019
(2019/C 258/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1151 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,04 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4674 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91623 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6645 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1041 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7778 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,658 




HUF


Hungarian forint


326,48 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2912 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7338 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1610 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6175 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4662 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7289 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6883 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5261 




KRW


South Korean won


1 318,25 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8634 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6743 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3823 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 639,30 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6015 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,685 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,8041 




THB


Thai baht


34,273 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2180 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2005 




INR


Indian rupee


76,6965 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9448 — Hitachi/Chassis Brakes International) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2019269EN.01000101.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9448 — Hitachi/Chassis Brakes International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 269/01)
On 1 August 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 32019M9448. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Learning corner : play - teach - discover the European Union.
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communication
Subjects: education policy, learning, promotion of the European idea

Learning 
corner

PLAY - TEACH - DISCOVER
THE EUROPEAN UNION

Scan me!

europa.eu/learning-corner/home_en

N
A
-
0
2
-
1
9
-
3
2
6
-
E
N
-
N
Notice from the Government of Malta concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Malta
Subjects: Malta, extraction of oil, hydrocarbon, mineral prospecting, petroleum exploration, public contract, security of supply








C_2019258EN.01000901.xml










1.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/9






Notice from the Government of Malta concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
(2019/C 258/05)
Pursuant to the Notice from the Government of Malta concerning the above-mentioned Directive published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 24 March 2015 (2015/C 97/05), the Office of the Prime Minister hereby notifies that Area 5 is now available for authorisation on a permanent basis under either an exploration licence or an exploration and production licence until further notice.
The Office of the Prime Minister also notifies that pursuant to the Notice from the Government of Malta concerning the above-mentioned Directive published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 21 September 2017 (2017/C 313/02), Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of Area 3 are now under an authorisation and are not available for licensing until further notice.
Information regarding this notice may be obtained by contacting the Director-General of the Continental Shelf Department at the Office of the Prime Minister, Block F, Antonio Maurizio Valperga Street, Floriana, FRN 1700, Malta on dgcs.opm@gov.mt and on continentalshelf.gov.mt.
Case C-591/19 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2019 in Case T-138/18, De Esteban Alonso v Commission
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, indemnification








C_2019413EN.01002301.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/23






Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2019 in Case T-138/18, De Esteban Alonso v Commission
(Case C-591/19 P)
(2019/C 413/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando De Esteban Alonso

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of 11 June 2019 (T-138/18);










—


dismiss the action brought at first instance;










—


order Mr De Esteban to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, alleging an incorrect legal classification of the facts in the light of Article 4 of Commission Decision No 1999/396, the Commission submits that the General Court should not have held that Mr De Esteban had to be ‘treated in the same way’ as the persons referred to by name in the note sent by OLAF to the French authorities on 19 March 2003 or at the very least regarded as being personally involved in the facts, whereas the person concerned did not fall within any of those categories.
The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1073/1999 according to which the institutions must take ‘such action, in particular disciplinary or legal,’ on the report submitted by OLAF ‘as the results … warrant’. The Commission claims that that provision cannot be interpreted a contrario as limiting the discretion available to it in the defence of the European Union’s interests and, in particular, as prohibiting it from appearing as a civil party in criminal proceedings and from filing a criminal complaint before the national authorities where it deems it appropriate in the light of the information available to it, including at a stage prior to the adoption of any OLAF report.
By its third ground of appeal, relied on in the alternative, the Commission claims that the General Court could not uphold the action for compensation since there was no causal link. The General Court unduly departed from its case-law according to which there is no sufficiently direct causal link between the forwarding of information by OLAF to the national authorities and the harm allegedly suffered.
Case T-550/19: Action brought on 1 August 2019 – Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO – Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER)
Date: 2019-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, dietary product, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019337EN.01001601.xml










7.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/16






Action brought on 1 August 2019 – Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO – Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER)
(Case T-550/19)
(2019/C 337/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Kyoto, Japon) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark NOSTER – International registration designating the European Union No 1 332 950

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 in Case R 2279/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.