do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9493 — Triton/Aleris) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health care, investment company, merger control








C_2019309EN.01000502.xml










13.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9493 — Triton/Aleris)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 309/05)
On 5 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 32019M9493. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-665/19 P: Appeal brought on 5 September 2019 by NeXovation, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-353/15: NeXovation v Commission
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, State aid, catering industry, control of State aid, hotel industry, leisure park, restriction on competition, sports facilities








C_2019372EN.01002302.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/23






Appeal brought on 5 September 2019 by NeXovation, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-353/15: NeXovation v Commission
(Case C-665/19 P)
(2019/C 372/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: NeXovation, Inc. (represented by: A. von Bergwelt, M. Nordmann, L. Hettstedt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside points 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, and annul Article 3(2) and the final indent of Article 1 of the Commission Decision (1) of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 implemented by Germany for Nurburgring (with a corrigendum of 13 April 2015);










—


in the alternative, set aside points 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds of appeal:
With respect to the first contested decision the General Court erred in applying Article 263(4) TFEU since the appellant was individually concerned. The General Court misjudged that the case does not reflect the typical scenario in which competition between several suppliers of goods is affected but between bidders, which request a certain good.
With respect to the second contested decision the General Court erred in applying Articles 107(1) and 296(2) TFEU as well as Articles 4(3) and 20(2) of the procedural Regulation No (EU) 659/1999 (2) and the principle of a diligent and impartial investigation.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (notified under document C(2014) 3634) (OJ 2016, L 34, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999, L 83, p. 1).
Case C-331/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — TE v Pohotovosť s.r.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2008/48/EC – Consumer protection – Consumer credit – Article 10(2)(h) and (i) and Article 10(3) – Information to be included in the agreement – National legislation laying down an obligation to specify for each payment the distribution between the repayment of capital, interest and charges)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, approximation of laws, bank charges, consumer credit, consumer protection, contract terms, interest, judgment of the Court (EU), payment, redemption








C_2019383EN.01002501.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/25






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — TE v Pohotovosť s.r.o.
(Case C-331/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Article 10(2)(h) and (i) and Article 10(3) - Information to be included in the agreement - National legislation laying down an obligation to specify for each payment the distribution between the repayment of capital, interest and charges)
(2019/C 383/26)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: TE

Respondent: Pohotovost’ s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 10(2)(h) to (j) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a credit agreement must specify the breakdown of each repayment showing, where applicable, capital amortisation, interest and other charges.










2.


Articles 10(2) and 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C-42/15, EU:C:2016:842), are applicable to a credit agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was entered into before that judgment was handed down and before the national legislation was amended in order to comply with the interpretation adopted in that judgment.






(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9406 — Lone Star — Stark Group/Saint-Gobain BDD) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 385/02
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, distributor, economic concentration, investment company, merchant, merger control, retail trade








C_2019385EN.01000201.xml










13.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9406 — Lone Star — Stark Group/Saint-Gobain BDD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 385/02)
On 5 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 32019M9406. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019300EN.01000101.xml










5.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

4 September 2019
(2019/C 300/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1018 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,03 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4584 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90255 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7530 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0848 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9838 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,834 




HUF


Hungarian forint


328,94 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3395 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7290 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2482 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6225 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4679 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6389 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7343 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5270 




KRW


South Korean won


1 327,96 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3729 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8808 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4045 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 593,22 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6273 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,205 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1531 




THB


Thai baht


33,732 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5603 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8430 




INR


Indian rupee


79,3890 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-28/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro – Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 – Single euro payments area (SEPA) – Payment by direct debit – Article 9(2) – Accessibility of payments – Residence condition)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic banking, electronic money, payment, payment system, residence








C_2019383EN.01001501.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/15






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG
(Case C-28/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro - Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 - Single euro payments area (SEPA) - Payment by direct debit - Article 9(2) - Accessibility of payments - Residence condition)
(2019/C 383/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Respondent: Deutsche Bahn AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 must be interpreted as precluding a contractual clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes payment by direct debit in euros under the European Union-wide direct debit scheme (SEPA direct debit) where the payer does not have his place of residence in the same Member State as that in which the payee has established his place of business.


(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case C-377/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 4(1) – Presumption of innocence – Public references to guilt – Agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the perpetrator of an offence – National case-law providing for the identification of accused persons who have not concluded such an agreement – Charter of Fundamental Rights – Article 48)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative sentence, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, rights of the defence








C_2019383EN.01002701.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/27






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH
(Case C-377/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 4(1) - Presumption of innocence - Public references to guilt - Agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the perpetrator of an offence - National case-law providing for the identification of accused persons who have not concluded such an agreement - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 48)
(2019/C 383/29)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the criminal proceedings against

AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude that an agreement in which the accused person recognises his guilt in exchange for a reduction in sentencing, which must be approved by a national court, expressly mentions as joint perpetrators of the criminal offence in question not only that person but also other accused persons, who have not recognised their guilt and are being prosecuted in separate criminal proceedings, on the condition that that reference is necessary for the categorisation of the legal liability of the person who entered into the agreement and, second, that that same agreement makes it clear that those other persons are being prosecuted in separate criminal proceedings and that their guilt has not been legally established.


(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Case T-242/18: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, accountant, administrator, audit, competition (EU), diploma








C_2019363EN.01003601.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/36






Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission
(Case T-242/18) (1)

(2019/C 363/45)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case C-290/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Wild fauna and flora – Conservation of natural habitats as well as wild fauna and flora – Article 4(4) – Annexes I and II – Sites of Community importance – Non-designation – Special areas of conservation – Necessary measures – Failure to adopt)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean region (EU), infringement of EU law, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2019383EN.01002401.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/24






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-290/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Wild fauna and flora - Conservation of natural habitats as well as wild fauna and flora - Article 4(4) - Annexes I and II - Sites of Community importance - Non-designation - Special areas of conservation - Necessary measures - Failure to adopt)
(2019/C 383/25)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Hermes, Agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Ines Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Reis Silva, H. Almeida, A. Pimenta and P. Barros da Costa, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by having failed to designate as special areas of conservation 61 sites of Community importance, which were selected by the European Commission in Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, and in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, as soon as possible and within a period of six years at most from the date on which those decisions were adopted, and, by having failed to adopt the necessary conservation measures which satisfy the ecological requirements of the types of natural habitat referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and of the species referred to in Annex II to that directive present on those sites of Community importance, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of that directive;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case T-753/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — C&A v EUIPO (#BESTDEAL) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark #BESTDEAL — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019357EN.01003302.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/33






Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — C&A v EUIPO (#BESTDEAL)
(Case T-753/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark #BESTDEAL - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 357/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2018 (Case R 1234/2018-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign #BESTDEAL as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders C&A AG to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Case T-606/19: Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Bartolomé Alvarado and Grupo Preciados Place v EUIPO — Alpargatas (ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019372EN.01003301.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/33






Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Bartolomé Alvarado and Grupo Preciados Place v EUIPO — Alpargatas (ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES)
(Case T-606/19)
(2019/C 372/34)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: José Fernando Bartolomé Alvarado (Madrid, Spain) and Grupo Preciados Place, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. García Remacha, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpargatas SA (São Paulo, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES — European Union trade mark No 14 750 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 in Case R 1825/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Find that the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 20 June 2019, which was notified to the applicants on 5 July 2019, has been submitted in due form and within the corresponding deadline; and, by way of the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, reject any and all of the claims of the company ALPARTAGAS S.A., and order that the registration of EU trade mark No 14 750 624 be maintained, with all the legal consequences associated therewith.





Pleas in law







—


Challenge to the contested decision with regard to the res judicata relied on by the applicant;










—


Challenge to the Office’s assessment of the similarity between the opposing marks;










—


The decision creates a monopoly of the name ‘alpargata’, thereby infringing the trade mark regime and the position adopted by the Office itself;










—


No likelihood of association or confusion.