do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-652/18: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo — Bulgaria) — SZ v Mitnitsa Burgas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Article 3(1) — Infringement of the obligation to declare — Article 9(1) — Penalties provided for by national law — National legislation — Fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, capital movement, confiscation of property, customs formalities, fine, money, principle of proportionality








C_2019423EN.01001901.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/19






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo — Bulgaria) — SZ v Mitnitsa Burgas
(Case C-652/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Article 3(1) - Infringement of the obligation to declare - Article 9(1) - Penalties provided for by national law - National legislation - Fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State - Proportionality)
(2019/C 423/23)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Haskovo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SZ

Defendant: Mitnitsa Burgas

in the presence of: Okrazhna prokuratura — Haskovo

Operative part of the order

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of penalising an infringement of the obligation to declare provided for in Article 3 of that regulation, provides that, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, the undeclared sum is to be confiscated by the State.


(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Case T-730/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — DQ and Others v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Removal measure — Duration of the administrative procedure — Liability — Non-material damage)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2019423EN.01004802.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/48






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — DQ and Others v Parliament
(Case T-730/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Removal measure - Duration of the administrative procedure - Liability - Non-material damage)
(2019/C 423/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: DQ and 11 other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants essentially as a result of inappropriate handling of their request for assistance concerning psychological harassment ascribed to their line manager.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the European Parliament to pay to DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, an overall amount of EUR 36 000, to be divided amongst them, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, together with interest, from the date of 13 December 2017, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points, until the date of payment by the Parliament of the amount of EUR 36 000;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex;











4.



Orders DQ and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to bear half of their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Case T-500/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MG PUMA — Earlier EU word mark GINMG — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01004201.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/42






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA)
(Case T-500/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark MG PUMA - Earlier EU word mark GINMG - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 423/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Destilerias MG, SL (Vilanova i la Geltru, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 (Case R 2019/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Destilerias MG and Puma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Case T-686/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — LegalCareers v EUIPO (LEGALCAREERS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark LEGALCAREERS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 7(1)(b)of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, education, on line data service, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01004701.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/47






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — LegalCareers v EUIPO (LEGALCAREERS)
(Case T-686/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark LEGALCAREERS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(1)(b)of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 423/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: LegalCareers GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 (Case R 234/2018-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign LEGALCAREERS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders LegalCareers GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9450 — PPG/TIL/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 332/08
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: container, economic concentration, harbour installation, investment company, maritime shipping, merger control, port traffic








C_2019332EN.01001801.xml










3.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/18






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9450 — PPG/TIL/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 332/08)

1.   
On 26 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:






—


Peel Ports Group Limited (United Kingdom, ‘PPG’),










—


Terminal Investments Limited S.a.r.l (Switzerland, ‘TIL’), jointly controlled by MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. (Switzerland) and by certain equity funds managed by Global Infrastructure Management, LLC (USA),










—


The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (L2) Limited (United Kingdom, ‘MDHCL2’), belonging to the PPG group.




PPG and TIL acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of MDHCL2.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for undertaking PPG: a port group that provides ports, shipping and marine support services. PPG operates in various locations in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands and Australia,










—


for undertaking TIL: invests in, develops and manages container terminals in various parts of the world, including Southeast Asia, the Middle East and the Americas,










—


for undertaking MDHCL2: a newly established entity that currently does not have operative business activities. Post-transaction, it will be in charge of the operation of the L2 Terminal at the Port of Liverpool.






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.9450 – PPG/TIL/JV
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-302/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status — Article 5(1)(a) — Stable, regular and sufficient resources)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, foreign national, income, residence permit








C_2019413EN.01001601.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/16






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat
(Case C-302/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status - Article 5(1)(a) - Stable, regular and sufficient resources)
(2019/C 413/17)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘resources’ referred to in that provision does not concern solely the ‘own resources’ of the applicant for long-term resident status, but may also cover the resources made available to that applicant by a third party provided that, in the light of the individual circumstances of the applicant concerned, they are considered to be stable, regular and sufficient.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case T-542/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark wanda films — Earlier EU word mark WANDA — Relative ground for refusal — Restriction of the application for registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, education, electronic device, film industry, publishing, registered trade mark, satellite navigation, signalling device, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01004401.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/44






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)
(Case T-542/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark wanda films - Earlier EU word mark WANDA - Relative ground for refusal - Restriction of the application for registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 423/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 (Case R 829/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Dalian Wanda Group and Wanda Films.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-70/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A, B, P (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 2/76 — Article 7 — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — ‘Standstill’ clauses — New restriction — Collection, registration and retention of biometric data of Turkish nationals in a central filing system — Overriding reasons of public interest — Objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud — Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to respect for private life — Right to the protection of personal data — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, biometrics, data protection, fight against crime, foreign national, identity theft, personal data, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, residence permit








C_2019413EN.01000602.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/6






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A, B, P
(Case C-70/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 2/76 - Article 7 - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - ‘Standstill’ clauses - New restriction - Collection, registration and retention of biometric data of Turkish nationals in a central filing system - Overriding reasons of public interest - Objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to respect for private life - Right to the protection of personal data - Proportionality)
(2019/C 413/07)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other parties: A, B, P

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the issuance of a temporary residence permit to third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, conditional upon the collection, recording and retention of their biometric data in a central filing system does constitute a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction is, however, justified by the objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud.


(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Case T-668/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Word mark ADPepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01004602.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/46






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper)
(Case T-668/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark ADPepper - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
(2019/C 423/58)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 840/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-805/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF v ECHA (REACH — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy — Decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis — Broad discretion of ECHA — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, principle of legal certainty, right to justice








C_2019423EN.01003301.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/33






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF v ECHA
(Case T-805/17) (1)

(REACH - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 - Requirement for joint submission of data - Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out - Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance - Failure to reach an agreement - Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy - Decision granting access to a joint submission - Legal basis - Broad discretion of ECHA - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty)
(2019/C 423/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Jacquet and T. Basmatzi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision DSH-30-3-0122-2017 of ECHA of 2 October 2017 granting Sustainability Support Services (Europe) AB access to the joint submission lodged by BASF, as lead registrant for the substance disodium 4,4'-bis[(4-anilino-6-morpholino-1, 3, 5-triazin-2-yl)amino]stilbene-2,2'-disulphonate, EC No 240-245-2 and CAS No 16090-02-1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders BASF SE and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.