do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-142/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019399EN.01006901.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/69






Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)
(Case T-142/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 399/86)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 927/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9466 — Infineon/Cypress) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control








C_2019314EN.01001501.xml










18.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9466 — Infineon/Cypress)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 314/11)

1.   
On 11 September 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:






—


Infineon Technologies AG (‘Infineon’) (Germany),










—


Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (‘Cypress’) (USA).




Infineon acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (‘Cypress’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   For Infineon: design, manufacture and distribution of a wide range of semiconductors and power semiconductors, including inter alia, transistors, drivers, diodes, microcontrollers (including embedded control, radio-frequency and sensors), for a wide range of applications,
—   For Cypress: manufacture and supply of embedded systems solutions for automotive, industrial, consumer and enterprise end markets. Cypress' product portfolio includes microcontrollers, analog integrated circuits, wireless and wired connectivity solutions and memory products.


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.9466 — Infineon/Cypress
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’).
Case C-686/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2019 — ‘Soho Group’ SIA v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, contract terms, cost of borrowing, deadline for payment








C_2019399EN.01003201.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2019 — ‘Soho Group’ SIA v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
(Case C-686/19)
(2019/C 399/37)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Soho Group’ SIA

Defendant: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred







1.


Is the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, an autonomous concept of EU law?










2.


Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) 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 circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Special Report No 14/2019 — ‘Have your say!’: Commission's public consultations engage citizens, but fall short of outreach activities
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU national, European Commission, operation of the Institutions, public consultation, sample survey








C_2019314EN.01000501.xml










18.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/5






Special Report No 14/2019
‘Have your say!’: Commission's public consultations engage citizens, but fall short of outreach activities
(2019/C 314/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 14/2019, ‘Have your say!’: Commission's public consultations engage citizens, but fall short of outreach activities has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu.
Case C-700/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Exemptions — Hospital and medical care — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — No confidential relationship between the person providing the care and the patient)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, biochemistry, health care, medical diagnosis, tax exemption








C_2019399EN.01000501.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/5






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters
(Case C-700/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(b) and (c) - Exemptions - Hospital and medical care - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - No confidential relationship between the person providing the care and the patient)
(2019/C 399/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Kyritz

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Wolf-Henning Peters

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of medical care such as that at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a medical specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, is capable of falling within the scope of the exemption from VAT under Article 132(1)(c) of that directive, where it fails to meet all the conditions for the application of the exemption under Article 132(1)(b) of the directive;










2.


Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT that it provides for is not subject to the condition that the medical care in question is supplied within the framework of a confidential relationship between the patient and the person providing the care.






(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case C-526/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 2004/18/EC — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Public works concession contracts — Extension of the duration of an existing concession for the construction and operation of a motorway, without publication of a contract notice)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, motorway, service concession, tendering, works contract








C_2019399EN.01000401.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-526/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 2004/18/EC - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Public works concession contracts - Extension of the duration of an existing concession for the construction and operation of a motorway, without publication of a contract notice)
(2019/C 399/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, P. Ondrůšek and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and V. Nunziata, E. De Bonis and P. Pucciariello, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by extending the concession for the section of the A12 Livorno-Civitavecchia motorway from Livorno to Cecina (Italy) from 31 October 2028 to 31 December 2046, without publishing a contract notice, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 58 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 of 4 December 2007;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and three quarters of the costs of the Italian Republic. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear one quarter of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case T-677/17: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — ClientEarth v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: approval, commercial vehicle, confidentiality, environmental protection, market approval, motor car, motor vehicle pollution








C_2019423EN.01005102.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/51






Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-677/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market - Environment - Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 423/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker, G. Gattinara and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 of 7 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 and Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards real-driving emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2017 L 175, p. 708).

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.











2.



Each party shall bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Case C-32/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 60 — Family benefits — Right to payment of the difference between the parental allowance paid in the Member State having primary competence and the childcare allowance provided by the Member State having secondary competence)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dependant, family benefit, frontier worker, income, parental allowance, residence, social legislation, social-security harmonisation








C_2019399EN.01000701.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/7






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser
(Case C-32/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 60 - Family benefits - Right to payment of the difference between the parental allowance paid in the Member State having primary competence and the childcare allowance provided by the Member State having secondary competence)
(2019/C 399/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Defendant: Michael Moser

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation laid down in that provision to take into account, for the purposes of determining the scope of a person’s entitlement to family benefits, ‘the whole family … as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned’ applies both in the case where benefits are provided in accordance with the legislation designated as having priority under Article 68(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and in the case where benefits are payable in accordance with one or more other laws.










2.


Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the differential supplement to be granted to a worker under the legislation of a Member State having secondary competence in accordance with that article must be calculated by reference to the income actually earned by that worker in his Member State of employment.






(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case T-70/19: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019399EN.01006702.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/67






Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (LA PASSIATA)
(Case T-70/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 399/84)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2018 (Case R 928/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case C-691/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Banco Santander, S.A. v VF and WD
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, limitation of legal proceedings, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2019423EN.01002301.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Banco Santander, S.A. v VF and WD
(Case C-691/19)
(2019/C 423/29)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Banco Santander, S.A.

Defendants: VF and WD

Questions referred







1.


Is a judicial interpretation (according to which the repayment of sums unduly paid under a costs clause included in a mortgage loan agreement concluded with a consumer is the effect not of a declaration of invalidity but of an independent action subject to a limitation period) which allows a consumer to be permanently bound by the costs clause, inasmuch as he will not be able to recover those costs if that action has become time-barred, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, recognised in Article 6(1) of Directive (1) [93/13]?










2.


Is the act of time-barring a claim for the restitution of sums unduly paid pursuant to the application of a clause which has been declared unfair compatible with that principle, inasmuch as it may cause the right to restitution to be lost, notwithstanding the declaration as to the invalidity of that clause?










3.


If the answer is in the affirmative, is the concept of a ‘reasonable limitation period’ to which the Court of Justice refers to be interpreted within an exclusively national context or, conversely, must reasonableness be subject to some form of requirement aimed at providing a minimum level of protection for borrowers throughout the European Union and ensuring that the substantive content of the right not to be bound by a clause which has been declared unfair is not adversely affected?










4.


If the view is taken that the reasonableness of the limitation period must be subject to certain minimum preconditions, may reasonableness depend on the point in time at which a national law stipulates that the action may be brought?; is it reasonable for the limitation period to start to run on the date on which the agreement was concluded, or, conversely, does the principle that unfair terms are not binding require a prior or simultaneous declaration as to the invalidity of the costs clause so as to ensure that the borrower has a reasonable period within which to seek the reimbursement of the sums which have been unduly paid?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9413 — Lactalis/Nuova Castelli) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cheese factory, dairy industry, economic concentration, merger control, milk product, sale, supply








C_2019314EN.01001001.xml










18.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9413 — Lactalis/Nuova Castelli)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 314/07)

1.   
On 9 September 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:






—


Gruppo Lactalis Italia S.r.l. (Italy), belonging to the Lactalis Group (together ‘Lactalis’, France),










—


Nuova Castelli SpA (‘Nuova Castelli’, Italy), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuova Castelli Group SpA (France), in turn controlled by Charterhouse Capital Partners (United Kingdom).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Lactalis: producing and supplying cheese such as mozzarella, mascarpone and ricotta, as well as drinking milk, butter, fresh products, cream and industrial dairy products (milk powder, whey, etc.),
—   for Nuova Castelli: producing and selling various Italian cheeses, mostly hard cheeses and soft cheeses (mozzarella, parmesan, grana padano, pecorino, ricotta, etc.) and has trading activity in relation essentially to mascarpone, feta and butter.


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.9413 — Lactalis/Nuova Castelli
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’).