do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/1388 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 4 September 2019 appointing a Judge to the General Court
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2019230EN.01000201.xml










6.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 230/2








            DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2019/1388 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 4 September 2019
         
appointing a Judge to the General Court


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Article 48 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), provides that the General Court is to consist of two Judges per Member State as from 1 September 2019.












(2)


Point (c) of Article 2 of that Regulation provides that the term of office of four Judges, of the additional nine Judges to be appointed as from 1 September 2019, ends on 31 August 2022.












(3)


Mr Gerhard HESSE has been nominated for the post of additional Judge of the General Court.












(4)


The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr Gerhard HESSE to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court.












(5)


Mr Gerhard HESSE should be appointed to the post of additional Judge of the General Court,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Gerhard HESSE is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 31 August 2022.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 4 September 2019.


The President

M. RISLAKKI
            





(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, p. 14).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9487 — Charlesbank/GTCR/PPT) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, health care, information technology industry, investment company, maintenance, means of communication, merger control, network server, telecommunications








C_2019309EN.01000501.xml










13.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9487 — Charlesbank/GTCR/PPT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 309/04)
On 4 September 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 32019M9487. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-653/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DK
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, detention before trial, fundamental rights, legal hearing, proof, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019399EN.01002902.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2019 — Criminal proceedings against DK
(Case C-653/19)
(2019/C 399/34)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

DK

Question referred

Is a national law that, during the trial stage of criminal proceedings, requires a change in circumstances as a condition for granting the defence's application for the release of the accused person from detention, consistent with Article 6 and recital 22 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and with Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Case C-657/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2019 —Tax Office D v E
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, medical report, provision of services, social services, subcontracting, tax exemption, taxpayer








C_2019406EN.01001301.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2019 —Tax Office D v E
(Case C-657/19)
(2019/C 406/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tax Office D
Defendant: E

Questions referred







1.


In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does the preparation by a taxable person of expert reports on the care and support needs of patients for the Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung (Health Insurance Medical Service) fall within the scope of Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (Directive 2006/112/EC)?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






(a)


In order for an undertaking to be recognised as a body devoted to social wellbeing within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC, is it sufficient if, as a subcontractor, it supplies services to a body recognised under national law as a body devoted to social wellbeing within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC?










(b)


If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is it sufficient that the expense incurred by the recognised body within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC is borne entirely by the Health Insurance and Care and Support Insurance Funds in order for a subcontractor of that recognised body also to be regarded as a recognised body?










(c)


If Questions 2(a) and 2(b) are answered in the negative: In order for a taxable person to be recognised as a body devoted to social wellbeing, may a Member State subject such recognition to the condition that the taxable person has actually entered into a contract with a social security or social welfare authority, or is it sufficient if a contract with that taxable person could be entered into under national law?










(1)  OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9476 — Toyota Tsusho/Toyota Tsusho India/Maruti Suzuki India/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, distributor, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts, waste management








C_2019316EN.01000102.xml










20.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9476 — Toyota Tsusho/Toyota Tsusho India/Maruti Suzuki India/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 316/02)
On 4 September 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 32019M9476. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9458 — CBRE/Telford Homes) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: business park, economic concentration, merger control, property market, provision of services, residential area








C_2019299EN.01001201.xml










4.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 299/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9458 — CBRE/Telford Homes)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 299/07)

1.   
On 28 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:






—


CBRE Group, Inc. (‘CBRE’, USA),










—


Telford Homes PLC (‘Telford Homes’, UK).




CBRE acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Telford Homes.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CBRE: provides commercial real estate services on a worldwide basis, including real estate management services and facilities management services, commercial real estate investment management, and development services,
—   for Telford Homes: develops residential-led, mixed-use sites in the United Kingdom.


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.9458 — CBRE/Telford Homes
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9471 — Clearlake/TA/DigiCert) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, miscellaneous industries








C_2019322EN.01000101.xml










26.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 322/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9471 — Clearlake/TA/DigiCert)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 322/01)
On 4 September 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 32019M9471. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-604/19: Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, food supplement, foodstuff, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019363EN.01003001.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/30






Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)
(Case T-604/19)
(2019/C 363/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Inova Semiconductors GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venta Servicio LED, SL (Martorell, Spain)

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 figurative mark ISELED in the colours black, red, orange, yellow, green and blue – International registration designating the European Union No 1 343 583

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 in Case R 2149/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the plaintiff for the purposes of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of essential procedural requirements in Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019299EN.01000201.xml










4.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 299/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 September 2019
(2019/C 299/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0937 




JPY


Japanese yen


116,05 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4566 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90885 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8128 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0829 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0190 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,885 




HUF


Hungarian forint


330,68 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3663 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7292 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2937 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6247 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4627 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5788 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7385 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5237 




KRW


South Korean won


1 328,80 




ZAR


South African rand


16,5525 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8513 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4055 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 558,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6162 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,190 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,2576 




THB


Thai baht


33,548 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5684 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9477 




INR


Indian rupee


79,1970 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-658/19: Action brought on 4 September 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data transmission, fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, national implementing measure, natural person, personal data, protection of privacy, sanction (EU)








C_2019357EN.01002702.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/27






Action brought on 4 September 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-658/19)
(2019/C 357/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Nardi, G. von Rintelen and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 May 2018, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on [the protection of natural persons with regard] to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63(1) of that directive;










—


Impose on the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 89 548,20, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt or, in any event, the failure to notify to the Commission, the measures necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2016/680, to be paid into an account to be indicated by the Commission;










—


Impose on the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a lump-sum payment, the amount of which corresponds to the daily amount of EUR 21 321,00 multiplied by the number of days on which the infringement continues, provided that that amount exceeds the minimum lump-sum payment of EUR 5 290 000, to be paid into an account to be indicated by the Commission;










—


Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 63(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680, the Member States were to adopt and publish, by 6 May 2018, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, and forthwith notify to the Commission the text of those provisions.
The Commission has not been informed of the adoption and entry into force of any of the required transposition measures, and is not aware of any other information indicating that the directive has been transposed.
The Kingdom of Spain has, therefore, failed to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/680, more than a year after the expiry of the period for transposition.


(1)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89
Case C-71/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v KPC Herning (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Sale of land on which a building is located at the time of supply – Classification – Articles 12 and 135 – Concept of ‘building land’ – Concept of ‘building’ – Assessment of the economic and commercial reality – Evaluation of objective evidence – Intention of the parties)
Date: 2019-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building, building plot, real property, sale, supply, transfer of property








C_2019383EN.01001801.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/18






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v KPC Herning
(Case C-71/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Sale of land on which a building is located at the time of supply - Classification - Articles 12 and 135 - Concept of ‘building land’ - Concept of ‘building’ - Assessment of the economic and commercial reality - Evaluation of objective evidence - Intention of the parties)
(2019/C 383/17)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: KPC Herning

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(a) and (b), (2) and (3) and Article 135(1)(j) and (k) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of land supporting a building at the date of that supply cannot be classified as a supply of ‘building land’ where that transaction is economically independent of other services and does not form a single transaction with them, even if the parties’ intention was that the building should be wholly or partly demolished to make room for a new building.


(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.