do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at the meeting on 7 October 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40608 – Broadcom Rapporteur: Lithuania (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 81/10
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic component, telecommunications equipment








C_2021081EN.01001201.xml










10.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/12






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at the meeting on 7 October 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40608 – Broadcom
Rapporteur: Lithuania
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 81/10)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision prima facie constitutes an abuse of a dominant position that infringes Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision on the urgent need for interim measures due to the risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition.



3.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that it is necessary and appropriate to impose interim measures pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in the terms set out in the draft decision.



4.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the duration of the interim measures, as set out in the draft decision.



5.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9532 — Glendower Capital/Investindustrial/HTG/Rotor) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 352/06
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cycle and motorcycle industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, transport of patients








C_2019352EN.01000601.xml










18.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9532 — Glendower Capital/Investindustrial/HTG/Rotor)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 352/06)
On 7 October 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 32019M9532. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-686/19: Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, dietary product, food supplement, human nutrition, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2019399EN.01010002.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/100






Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)
(Case T-686/19)
(2019/C 399/119)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Euroapotheca UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė, and E. Saukalas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark GNC LIVE WELL – European Union trade mark No 940 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 in Case R 2189/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1680 of 7 October 2019 correcting the Czech language version of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 on the harmonised standards for machinery drafted in support of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: Cenelec, EC conformity marking, European Committee for Standardisation, European standard, harmonisation of standards, machinery, safety standard, technical standard








L_2019257EN.01004701.xml










8.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 257/47








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2019/1680
of 7 October 2019
         
correcting the Czech language version of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 on the harmonised standards for machinery drafted in support of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 10(6) thereof,


Having regard to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (2), and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Czech language version of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 (3) contains errors in the second paragraph of Article 1 and in Article 2 as regards the question whether and to what extent the machinery manufactured in conformity with the harmonised standards listed in Annexes II and III to that Decision is presumed to satisfy the relevant essential health and safety requirements of Directive 2006/42/EC.












(2)


The Czech language version of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

(does not concern the English language)



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 7 October 2019.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 24.

(3)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/436 of 18 March 2019 on the harmonised standards for machinery drafted in support of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 75, 19.3.2019, p. 108).
Case C-738/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2019 — A v B, C
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, payment, unfair terms of contract








C_2020019EN.01001101.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2019 — A v B, C
(Case C-738/19)
(2020/C 19/14)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendants: B, C

Question referred

How should Directive 93/13 (1) and, more specifically, the principle of cumulative effect contained therein, be interpreted when assessing whether the sum which a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations is required to pay in compensation (‘penalty clause’) is disproportionately high within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, in a case in which penalty clauses are associated with shortcomings of various kinds which, by their very nature, do not have to occur together, and indeed do not do so in the present case? Is it also relevant in that regard that, with regard to the shortcoming on the basis of which payment of the fine is sought, compensation in the form of the remittance of unfairly made profits is also sought?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-171/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) — Male and female workers — Equal pay — Private occupational retirement pension scheme — Normal pension age differentiated by gender — Date of adoption of measures reinstating equal treatment — Retroactive equalisation of that age to the normal pension age of the persons previously disadvantaged)
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: gender equality, pension scheme, sexual discrimination, trust company








C_2019423EN.01000701.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd
(Case C-171/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) - Male and female workers - Equal pay - Private occupational retirement pension scheme - Normal pension age differentiated by gender - Date of adoption of measures reinstating equal treatment - Retroactive equalisation of that age to the normal pension age of the persons previously disadvantaged)
(2019/C 423/08)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Safeway Ltd

Defendants: Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) must be interpreted as precluding, in the absence of an objective justification, a pension scheme from adopting, in order to end discrimination contrary to that provision resulting from the fixing of a normal pension age differentiated by gender, a measure which equalises, with retroactive effect, the normal pension age of members of that scheme to that of the persons within the previously disadvantaged category, in respect of the period between the announcement of that measure and its adoption, even where such a measure is authorised under national law and under the Trust Deed governing that pension scheme.


(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Case C-47/19: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — HA v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(h) to (j) — Various exemptions connected with children or young persons, school or university education — Surfing and sailing courses for schools and universities — Class trip)
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, education, non-formal education, physical education, sport, tax exemption








C_2020077EN.01000901.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/9






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — HA v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst
(Case C-47/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(h) to (j) - Various exemptions connected with children or young persons, school or university education - Surfing and sailing courses for schools and universities - Class trip)
(2020/C 77/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HA

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst

Operative part of the order







1.


The concept of ‘school and university education’ for the purpose of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not including surfing and sailing tuition provided by surf and sailing schools, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, for schools or universities in which that tuition may, respectively, form part of the sporting activities programme or the training for physical education teachers and count towards the grade given to such pupils or students.










2.


The concept of a supply of services ‘closely linked to the protection of children and young persons’ for the purpose of Article 132(1)(h) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not including surfing and sailing tuition provided by surf and sailing schools, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, regardless of whether that tuition is provided in the context of a class trip.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case C-739/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 7 October 2019 – VK v An Bord Pleanála
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, freedom to provide services, judicial proceedings, lawyer, right of establishment








C_2019413EN.01003401.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/34






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 7 October 2019 – VK v An Bord Pleanála
(Case C-739/19)
(2019/C 413/40)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VK

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Questions referred







1.


Is a member state precluded from exercising the option to be found in Article 5 of Directive 77/249/EEC (1) of 22 March 1977, as amended, which permits a member state to impose a requirement on a lawyer who is engaged in the activity of representing a client in legal proceedings ‘to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question’, in all circumstances where the party whom the visiting lawyer wishes to represent in such proceedings would be entitled to self-represent?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is no, by reference to what factors should a national court assess whether it is permissible to impose a requirement to ‘practice in conjunction with’?










3.


In particular, would the imposition of a limited obligation to practice ‘in conjunction with’, in the manner described earlier in this order for reference, amount to a proportionate interference in the freedom of lawyers to provide services so as to be justified, having regard to the public interest involved being both the need to protect consumers of legal services and the need to secure the proper administration of justice?










4.


If the answer to question 3 is yes, does that position pertain in all circumstances and, if not, what factors should a national court take into account in determining whether such a requirement can be imposed in a particular case?






(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977, L 78, p. 17).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9527 — New Media Investment Group/Gannett Co.) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 336/03
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, marketing, mass media, merger control, publishing








C_2019336EN.01000501.xml










7.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9527 — New Media Investment Group/Gannett Co.)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 336/03)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


New Media Investment Group Inc. (United States of America),










—


Gannett Co., Inc. (United States of America).




New Media Investiment Group Inc. acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Gannett Co., Inc.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for New Media Investiment Group Inc.: publishing of local print and online media,










—


for Gannett Co., Inc.: media and marketing solutions company, including publishing of national and local print and online media.






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.9527 — New Media Investment Group/Gannett Co.
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 C-154/19: Order of the President of the Court of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — Kypriaki Kentriki Archi v GA
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Germany, Hamburg, Schengen Information System, criminal proceedings, independence of the judiciary, judicial review, public prosecutor's department, town








C_2020077EN.01003802.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/38






Order of the President of the Court of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — Kypriaki Kentriki Archi v GA
(Case C-154/19) (1)

(2020/C 77/54)
Language of the case: Greek
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case C-736/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 7 October 2019 — ZS Plaukti v Lauku atbalsta dienests
Date: 2019-10-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural policy, aid per hectare, development aid, eligibility criteria, financial aid, rural development, sanction (EU), single payment scheme








C_2019413EN.01003201.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 7 October 2019 — ZS Plaukti v Lauku atbalsta dienests
(Case C-736/19)
(2019/C 413/38)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: ZS ‘Plaukti’

Other party in the appeal on a point of law: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred







1.


Does the third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (1) as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures apply to a situation in which the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements relating to mowing the area for which the maintenance of pasture biodiversity payments were claimed (a requirement which goes beyond the mandatory minimum requirements under Article 39(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005 (2)) but where no change in the crop group has been found?










2.


Can both the penalty established in the third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 and the penalty laid down in Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation No 65/2011 be imposed simultaneously for a single infringement?










3.


Do Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (3) of 19 January 2009, in conjunction with Article 39(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 preclude national legislation according to which the same requirement can simultaneously be a mandatory minimum requirement and impose requirements greater than the minimum mandatory requirements (requirement for an agri-environment payment)?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 25, p. 8.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).