do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-605/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 — EP v Commission
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, pay scale, promotion








C_2019383EN.01006501.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/65






Action brought on 9 September 2019 — EP v Commission
(Case T-605/19)
(2019/C 383/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 under the 2018 promotion procedure;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons provided in the reply rejecting the complaint, in particular having regard to the fact that the Joint Promotions Committee recommended that the applicant be promoted.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the Appointing Authority inasmuch as it did not actually carry out an examination of the comparative merits of all the officials eligible for promotion.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated, in any event, by manifest errors of assessment, on the basis of the statement of grounds available for that decision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24b of the Staff Regulations and of the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the applicant was penalised on account of the staff representation duties he performs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9511 — Macquarie Group/Ocean Breeze Energy and Perikles) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, power plant, provision of services, wind energy








C_2019304EN.01000601.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9511 — Macquarie Group/Ocean Breeze Energy and Perikles)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 304/05)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


Sage Holdings S.à.r.l (Luxembourg), ultimately controlled by Macquarie Group Limited (‘Macquarie’, Australia),










—


Ocean Breeze Energy GmbH & Co. KG and Perikles 20092 Vermögensverwaltung GmbH (jointly referred to as the ‘Target’, Germany).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Macquarie: global provider of banking, financial, advisory, investment and fund management services,
—   for the Target: owns and operates (i) the offshore wind farm Bard Offshore 1 consisting of 80 wind turbine generators, its transformer station and the inner-array cabling, (ii) the jack-up barge Wind Lift I and (iii) the onshore wind farm Rysumer Nacken, consisting of two wind turbine generators.


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.9511 — Macquarie Group/Ocean Breeze Energy and Perikles
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-575/18: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark The Inner Circle – Earlier EU word mark InnerCircle – Relative ground for refusal – No similarity between the services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cultural event, human relations, leisure, performing arts, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019363EN.01001402.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/14






Order of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)
(Case T-575/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark The Inner Circle - Earlier EU word mark InnerCircle - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2019/C 363/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shore Capital International Ltd (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Circle Imperium BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 (Case R 1402/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Shore Capital International and Circle Imperium.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Shore Capital International Ltd shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case T-689/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — Executive Selling v EUIPO (EXECUTIVE SELLING) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark EXECUTIVE SELLING — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, auditing, business administration, business management, education, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019357EN.01003201.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/32






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — Executive Selling v EUIPO (EXECUTIVE SELLING)
(Case T-689/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark EXECUTIVE SELLING - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 357/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Executive Selling (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2018 (Case R 313/2018-1), concerning an international registration designating the European Union of figurative sign EXECUTIVE SELLING.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Executive Selling to bear the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case C-675/19 SA: Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 9 September 2019 — Ntinos Ramon v European Commission
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cyprus, VAT, claim, legal expenses, seizure of goods








C_2019432EN.01002101.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/21






Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 9 September 2019 — Ntinos Ramon v European Commission
(Case C-675/19 SA)
(2019/C 432/26)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Ntinos Ramon (represented by: Achilleas Demetriades and Charalampos Pogiatsis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant requests:






Α.


an order by the Court ordering the removal of the immunity of the European Commission under Article 1 of Protocol (No 7) (1) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union and authorising the service and execution of:






1)


the interim garnishee order nisi dated 26 June 2019 which was handed down by the Eparchiako Dikastirio Ammochostou (District Court of Famagusta) in Cyprus,










2)


whatever final order is made by that court,










3)


any other related order.














Β.


whatever order and remedy the Court judges to be fair and equitable in the circumstances.










C.


Costs inclusive of VAT.






(1)  OJ 2016 C 202, p. 266.
Case T-680/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — SLL Service v EUIPO — Elfa International (LUMIN8) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark LUMIN8 — Earlier EU word mark LUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade event, trade-mark law








C_2019357EN.01003101.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/31






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2019 — SLL Service v EUIPO — Elfa International (LUMIN8)
(Case T-680/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark LUMIN8 - Earlier EU word mark LUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 357/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SLL Service GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A Lukošiūtė and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Elfa International AB (Västervik, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 August 2018 (Case R 2752/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Elfa International and SLL Service

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders SLL Service GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019304EN.01000201.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

6 September 2019
(2019/C 304/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1027 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,01 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4614 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89635 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6350 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0928 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9230 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,836 




HUF


Hungarian forint


330,11 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3394 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7325 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2875 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6135 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4583 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6446 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7208 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5229 




KRW


South Korean won


1 314,72 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2808 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8442 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4038 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 532,63 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6098 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,208 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,5679 




THB


Thai baht


33,819 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5145 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6550 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0805 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-667/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 September 2019 — A.M. v E.M.
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, cosmetic product, labelling, product designation








C_2019406EN.01001401.xml










2.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 September 2019 — A.M. v E.M.
(Case C-667/19)
(2019/C 406/21)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.M.

Defendant: E.M.

Questions referred







1.


In so far as it provides that the container and packaging of cosmetic products should bear in indelible, easily legible and visible lettering information as to the function of the cosmetic product, unless it is clear from its presentation, should Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) be interpreted as referring to the essential functions of cosmetic products within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Regulation, that is, cleaning (keeping clean), nurturing and protecting (keeping in good condition), perfuming and beautifying (changing appearance), or should more detailed functions be stated, enabling the properties of the cosmetic product in question to be determined?










2.


Should Article 19(2) and recital 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in Article 19(1)(d), (g) and (f), namely, precautions, ingredients and functions, may be stated in a company’s catalogue which also includes other products, by placing the symbol set out in point 1 of Annex VII on the packaging?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9514 — Bain Capital Investors/Kantar) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, market research, mass media, merger control, provision of services, research








C_2019315EN.01000102.xml










19.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9514 — Bain Capital Investors/Kantar)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 315/02)
On 9 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 32019M9514. 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.9409 — Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, metal waste, metallurgical industry, non-ferrous metal, waste recycling








C_2019304EN.01000501.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9409 — Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 304/04)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


Aurubis AG (‘Aurubis’, Germany),










—


Metallo Group Holding NV (‘Metallo’, Belgium).




Aurubis AG acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole Metallo Group Holding NV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for undertaking Aurubis: is a provider of non-ferrous metals. In particular, Aurubis processes copper concentrates and copper scrap; produces copper cathodes and by-products of the copper refining process, as well as supplies copper shapes and semi-finished copper and copper alloys products such as flat rolled, bars, rods and wires,
—   for undertaking Metallo: active in recycling, processesing and trading of non-ferrous metals. In particular, Metallo refines copper scrap to produce copper cathodes and by-products of the refining process.


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.



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.9409 — Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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’).