do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Court of Appeal dated 13 August 2019 in criminal proceedings against H and I
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, cash-in-transit, criminal proceedings, derogation from EU law, driving period, rest period, road transport, transport safety








C_2020023EN.01000801.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/8






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Court of Appeal dated 13 August 2019 in criminal proceedings against H and I

(Case E-6/19)

(2020/C 23/08)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 13 August 2019 from the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht), which was received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in criminal proceedings against H and I on the following questions:






1.


In relation to Article 13(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006:






(a)


Does this provision also apply to ‘empty journeys’ by the specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables mentioned therein, in other words, to journeys by those vehicles for the purpose of collecting money or valuables and to return journeys after the delivery of money or valuables?










(b)


Does this provision also apply to vehicles escorting specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables?














2.


Is it necessary or proportionate, by reason of Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, for a Member State to impose penalties for infringements of this Regulation where the journeys at issue were effected by specialised vehicles transporting money or valuables on the territory of other Member States and those Member States have exercised the exception provided for in Article 13(1)(m) of this Regulation such that under the relevant national law of the Member States concerned no infringements exist?










3.


Must Article 6(5) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 be interpreted as meaning that even where a Member State has exercised the exception provided for in Article 13(1)(m) of this Regulation, any time spent as described in Article 4(e) of this Regulation and time spent driving vehicles (in each case in relation to journeys involving specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables) must be recorded as ‘other work’ in accordance with Article 6(5) of the Regulation mentioned?
If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, must Article 6(5) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 be applied also where the relevant Member State has exempted the vehicles concerned in accordance with Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (now Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014)?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019271EN.01006701.xml










13.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/67






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 August 2019
(2019/C 271/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1194 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,69 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4633 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,92615 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7315 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0876 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0003 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,831 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3275 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7250 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2161 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6589 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4807 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7825 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7352 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5520 




KRW


South Korean won


1 364,55 




ZAR


South African rand


17,2164 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9014 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3908 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 951,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7022 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,424 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,4092 




THB


Thai baht


34,506 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4660 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9971 




INR


Indian rupee


79,7460 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9398 — Centerbridge Partners/Amtrust Corporate Member) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, indemnity insurance, investment company, merger control, provision of services, reinsurance








C_2019299EN.01000101.xml










4.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 299/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9398 — Centerbridge Partners/Amtrust Corporate Member)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 299/01)
On 13 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 32019M9398. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-609/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne (France) lodged on 13 August 2019 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v VE
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, floating rate, foreign currency, national currency, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_2019348EN.01001201.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne (France) lodged on 13 August 2019 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v VE
(Case C-609/19)
(2019/C 348/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne (France)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Defendant: VE

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that terms stipulating repayments at fixed intervals allocated first to interest and providing for an extension of the term of the contract and for an increase in payments in order to pay the account balance, which [may] increase significantly as a result of exchange rate variations, constitute the main subject matter of a loan denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency, and that those terms cannot be considered in isolation?










2.


Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that terms stipulating payments at fixed intervals allocated first to interest and providing for an extension of [the] term [of the contract] and for an increase in payments in order to pay the account balance, which may increase significantly as a result of exchange rate variations, cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, in particular in that they expose the consumer to a disproportionate foreign exchange risk?










3.


Must Article 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as requiring that the plainness and intelligibility of the terms of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency be assessed by referring, at the time of conclusion of that agreement, to the foreseeable economic context, in the present case the consequences of the economic difficulties of the years 2007 to 2009 on exchange rate variations, taking into account the professional lender’s expertise and knowledge, as well as its good faith?










4.


Must Article 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as requiring that the plainness and intelligibility of the terms of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency be assessed by ascertaining that a lender, having [the] expertise and knowledge of a seller or supplier, has communicated to the consumer only objective and abstract information, inter alia quantitative information, which does not take into account the economic context capable of affecting exchange rate variations?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T-561/19: Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental impact, land use, principle of proportionality, soil protection, vegetable oil








C_2019328EN.01007301.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/73






Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission
(Case T-561/19)
(2019/C 328/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lípidos Santiga, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019, supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels and its Annex;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the global approach of the defendant, as a result of which palm oil qualifies as a high ILUC-risk feedstock is not proportionate.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding that palm oil regardless of its origin is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the criteria for the classification of palm oil as a high ILUC-risk feedstock are discriminatory.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to conduct the necessary impact assessment prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons underlying the design of the formula used for deciding that palm oil is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9354 — AXA/NN Group/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial institution, insurance company, merger control








C_2019271EN.01007301.xml










13.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/73






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9354 — AXA/NN Group/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 271/05)

1.   
On 5 August 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:






—


Lindisfarne S.L. (Spain), ESI One S.à.r.l. (France), Alterimmo Europe S.à.r.l. (France), all ultimately controlled by AXA S.A (‘AXA’, France),










—


REI Spain B.V. (The Netherlands), belonging to the NN Group (The Netherlands).




AXA and the NN Group indirectly acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for AXA: a global insurance group also active in investment management. Lindisfarne S.L., ESI One S.à.r.l., Alterimmo Europe S.à.r.l. are active in real estate management in Spain and in Europe,
—   for NN Group: a global financial institution offering investment and insurance services. REI Spain B.V. is active in acquiring, holding and managing real estate assets in Europe,
—   for the JV: will be active on the market for rental of residential space in Spain.


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.9354 — AXA/NN Group/JV
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 T-558/19: Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH TRAINING, RESEARCH & INNOVATION CENTER)
Date: 2019-08-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business tourism, consultancy, education, health care, information technology industry, medical diagnosis, registered trade mark, research and development, trade-mark law








C_2019319EN.01003201.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/32






Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH TRAINING, RESEARCH & INNOVATION CENTER)
(Case T-558/19)
(2019/C 319/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Luz Saúde, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Moreira Rato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH TRAINING, RESEARCH & INNOVATION CENTER — Application for registration No 16 433 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 2239/2018-4

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 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.