do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-466/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Amending decision — Settlement procedure — Fines — Basic amount — Exceptional adjustment — 10 % ceiling on the total turnover — Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Ne bis in idem principle — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Cumulation of penalties — Proportionality — Fairness — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, pulp and paper industry, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2019413EN.01004401.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/44






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Printeos and Others v Commission
(Case T-466/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Annulment in part on the ground of infringement of the obligation to state reasons - Amending decision - Settlement procedure - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - 10 % ceiling on the total turnover - Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Ne bis in idem principle - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Cumulation of penalties - Proportionality - Fairness - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2019/C 413/51)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France (Fleury-Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann et P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4112 final of 16 June 2017 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) and, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9523 — Munich RE/DIF/Green Investment Group/Covanta/Dublin Waste-To-Energy facility) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 332/03
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, insurance company, investment company, merger control, reinsurance, waste disposal








C_2019332EN.01000301.xml










3.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9523 — Munich RE/DIF/Green Investment Group/Covanta/Dublin Waste-To-Energy facility)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 332/03)
On 24 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 32019M9523. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-703/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 September 2019 — J.K. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, catering industry, prepared foodstuff, provision of services, sale, tax relief








C_2020027EN.01001401.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 September 2019 — J.K. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach
(Case C-703/19)
(2020/C 27/18)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: J.K.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach

Questions referred







1.


Does the concept of a ‘restaurant service’ to which a reduced rate of VAT applies (Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with point (12a) of Annex III thereto and with Article 6 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, (2) cover the sale of prepared dishes under conditions such as those in the main proceedings, that is to say, in a situation where:






—


the seller makes available to the buyer the infrastructure which enables him or her to consume the purchased meal on the premises (separate dining space, access to toilets);










—


there is no specialised waiter service;










—


there is no service in the strict sense;










—


the ordering process is simplified and partly automated; and










—


the customer’s ability to customise the order is limited?














2.


Is the way in which the dishes are prepared, consisting in, in particular, the heating of certain semi-finished products and the composing of prepared dishes from semi-finished products, relevant to answering the first question?










3.


In order to answer the first question, is it sufficient that the customer is potentially able to use the infrastructure offered or is it also necessary to establish that, for the average customer, this element constitutes an essential part of the service provided?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019320EN.01000101.xml










24.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 September 2019
(2019/C 320/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0985 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,07 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4664 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88343 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7143 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0891 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9723 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,890 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,62 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3820 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7498 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2829 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6224 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4586 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6116 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7514 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5140 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,27 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3465 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8279 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4068 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 472,37 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5976 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,272 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,2637 




THB


Thai baht


33,499 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5665 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3353 




INR


Indian rupee


77,9405 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-492/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (Scanner Pro) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Scanner Pro — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, digitisation, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01005001.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/50






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (Scanner Pro)
(Case T-492/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Scanner Pro - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 413/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Igor Zhadanov (Odessa, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė, S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 (Case R 1812/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Scanner Pro as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Igor Zhadanov to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Case C-712/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 September 2019 — Novo Banco S.A. v Junta de Andalucía
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, bank deposit, budget deficit, credit institution, direct tax, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, indirect tax, right of establishment, tax relief








C_2019423EN.01002501.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 September 2019 — Novo Banco S.A. v Junta de Andalucía
(Case C-712/19)
(2019/C 423/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Novo Banco S.A.

Respondent: Junta de Andalucía

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 49, 56 and 63 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, respectively, be interpreted as precluding, inter alia, a system of deductions like that laid down for the IDECA in points 2 and 3 of Article 6(7) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 of 3 December on fiscal measures for the reduction of the government deficit and for sustainability?










2.


Must the tax on customer deposits in credit institutions in Andalusia (IDECA) be categorised as an indirect tax despite the fact that Article 6(2) of Andalusian Law 11/2010 classifies it as a direct tax, and, in that case, are its existence and chargeability compatible with VAT, in the light of the provisions of Articles 401 and 135(1)(d) of the VAT Directive. (1)







(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Joined Cases T-748/17 and T-770/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — TrekStor and Beats Electronics v EUIPO — Beats Electronics and TrekStor (iBeat) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate — Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Avoidable costs — Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01005401.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/54






Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — TrekStor and Beats Electronics v EUIPO — Beats Electronics and TrekStor (iBeat)
(Joined Cases T-748/17 and T-770/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate - Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Avoidable costs - Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
(2019/C 413/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant in Case T-748/17: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber and A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-770/17: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Petersenn, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented, in Case T-748/17, initially by: E. Markakis and D. Walicka, and subsequently by E. Markakis, A. Söder and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents, and, in Case T-770/17, initially by: A. Söder and D. Walicka, and subsequently by A. Söder, E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-748/17: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Petersenn, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-770/17: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber and A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 (Joined Cases R 2175/2016-4 and R 2213/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Beats Electronics and TrekStor.

Operative part of the order







1.



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











2.



TrekStor Ltd and Beats Electronics LLC shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).











3.



TrekStor and Beats Electronics shall each pay to the Court the sum of EUR 2 500 under Article 139(a) of its Rules of Procedure.







(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case C-467/19 PPU: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2019 — (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against QR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Article 7(4) — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Right to remain silent and right not to incriminate oneself — Agreement between the prosecutor and the offender — Approval of such an agreement by the court — Condition — Consent of the other accused persons — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Not applicable)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alternative sentence, charge, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, organised crime, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019423EN.01002001.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/20






Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2019 — (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against QR
(Case C-467/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 7(4) - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent and right not to incriminate oneself - Agreement between the prosecutor and the offender - Approval of such an agreement by the court - Condition - Consent of the other accused persons - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Not applicable)
(2019/C 423/25)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Criminal proceedings against

QR

interveners: Spetsializirana prokuratura, YM, ZK, HD

Operative part of the order

Article 7(4) 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 govern the issue of whether or not the approval, by a court, of an agreement on the imposition of a negotiated sentence, such as the agreement at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between a person accused, on the basis of his alleged membership of a criminal group, and the prosecutor, may be rendered subject to the condition that the other persons accused, on the basis of their membership of that criminal group, must give their consent to the conclusion of that agreement.


(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9511 — Macquarie Group/Ocean Breeze Energy and Perikles) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 331/02
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, power plant, provision of services, wind energy








C_2019331EN.01000201.xml










2.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9511 — Macquarie Group/Ocean Breeze Energy and Perikles)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 331/02)
On 24 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 32019M9511. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-391/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Romania v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Protection of national and linguistic minorities — Strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity — Registration in part — Principle of conferral — Commission not manifestly lacking legislative powers — Obligation to state reasons — Article 5(2) TEU — Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 296 TFEU)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European citizens' initiative, competence of the institution, cultural pluralism, legislative power, linguistic group, national minority








C_2019413EN.01004301.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/43






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Romania v Commission
(Case T-391/17) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Protection of national and linguistic minorities - Strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity - Registration in part - Principle of conferral - Commission not manifestly lacking legislative powers - Obligation to state reasons - Article 5(2) TEU - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 296 TFEU)
(2019/C 413/50)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Romania (represented initially by: R. Radu, C.-M. Florescu, E. Gane and L. Lițu, and subsequently by Florescu, Gane, Lițu and C.-R. Canțăr, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, L. Radu Bouyon and H. Stancu, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and G. Tornyai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/652 of 29 March 2017 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (OJ 2017 L 92, p. 100).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Romania to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the interim proceedings;











3.



Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case T-121/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fortischem v Commission (State aid — Chemical industry — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — State resources — Advantage — Recovery — Economic continuity — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, aid for restructuring, bankruptcy, chemical industry, company in difficulties, control of State aid








C_2019423EN.01003101.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/31






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fortischem v Commission
(Case T-121/15) (1)

(State aid - Chemical industry - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - State resources - Advantage - Recovery - Economic continuity - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 423/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented initially by P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently by P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos and V. Dolka, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 3 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on the State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Fortischem a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders AlzChem AG to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.