do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-361/19: Order of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — CF v Parliament
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, psychological harassment, retroactivity of a law, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2020010EN.01005702.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/57






Order of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — CF v Parliament
(Case T-361/19) (1)

(2020/C 10/68)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2018/C 100/09 of 14 March 2018 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chianti Classico (PDO)) (Official Journal of the European Union C 100 of 16 March 2018)2019/C 373/09
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Italy, Tuscany, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine








C_2019373EN.01002601.xml










5.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/26






Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2018/C 100/09 of 14 March 2018 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chianti Classico (PDO))

(Official Journal of the European Union C 100 of 16 March 2018)

(2019/C 373/09)
On page 10, in the Annex, section 4 ‘Description of the wine(s)’, Chianti Classico Gran Selezione, in the table ‘General analytical characteristics’:
for:







‘Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)


130’





read:






‘Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)’
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 373/05
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, aerospace industry, chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, metal coating








C_2019373EN.01001101.xml










5.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/11






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 373/05)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 7683


29 October 2019


Potassium dichromate
EC No 231-906-6, CAS No 7778-50-9


Wesco Aircraft EMEA Limited, Lawrence House, Riverside drive, BD19 4DH Cleckheaton West Yorkshire, United Kingdom


REACH/19/31/0


Sealing after anodizing applications by the aerospace sector where the key functionalities of corrosion resistance or corrosion inhibition are necessary for the intended use.


21 September 2024


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case T-737/19: Action brought on 5 November 2019 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO)
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, egg, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019432EN.01007002.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/70






Action brought on 5 November 2019 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO)
(Case T-737/19)
(2019/C 432/81)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Huevos Herrera Mejías, SL (Torre Alháquime, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Montesierra, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO — Application for registration No 51 670 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2019 in Case R 2021/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and any parties intervening on its behalf to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-361/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, foodstuff, processed food product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, rice, trade-mark law








C_2019432EN.01004102.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/41






Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2019 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE)
(Case T-361/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 432/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Dontas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office SA (Athens, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 (Case R 90/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between APEDA and Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls point 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 March 2018 (Case R 90/2017-2), in relation to invalidity proceedings between Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office SA, in so far as it upholds the dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE in respect of the goods in Classes 30, 31 and 33 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, other than for ‘sago’ and ‘artificial rice [uncooked]’ in Class 30;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.







(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9484 — Semler/VWFS/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 389/04
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, hire purchase, merger control, vehicle








C_2019389EN.01000901.xml










18.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/9






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9484 — Semler/VWFS/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 389/04)
On 5 November 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 32019M9484. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-822/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2019 — Flavourstream SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, chemical alcohol, common customs tariff, flavouring, specification of tariff heading, sugar








C_2020054EN.01002901.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2019 — Flavourstream SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu
(Case C-822/19)
(2020/C 54/31)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants, defendants at first instance: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu

Respondent, applicant at first instance: Flavourstream SRL

Question referred

Must the nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2016/1821, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the product ‘AURIC GMO FREE’, which is at issue in the present case, is to be classified under tariff subheading 17 029 095 or subheading 29 124 900 of that nomenclature?


(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1).
Case T-744/19: Action brought on 5 November 2019 – Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, anti-dumping duty, chemical fertiliser, import (EU), import price, organic chemical, originating product, price formation








C_2020010EN.01004801.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/48






Action brought on 5 November 2019 – Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission
(Case T-744/19)
(2020/C 10/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd (Couva, Trinidad and Tobago) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America, in as far as it relates to the applicant;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, namely that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins violates Articles 1(1), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) to 3(8) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the General Court and of the WTO as well as the principle of fair comparison by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling margins calculation, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the Union industry at the same appropriate level of trade.
In essence, the Applicant submits, firstly, that the determination of the price of imported urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Trinidad and Tobago for the purpose of the calculation of the undercutting and underselling margins on the basis of the application by analogy of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation violates Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, and that by using this constructed price for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling margins determination, the Commission failed to compare prices at the same appropriate level of trade in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) to 3(8) and, consequently, of Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the Court and of the WTO as well as the principle of fair comparison.
Case T-746/19: Action brought on 5 November 2019 – GY v ECB
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, family benefit, staff regulations








C_2020036EN.01003301.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/33






Action brought on 5 November 2019 – GY v ECB
(Case T-746/19)
(2020/C 36/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decision of 28 January 2019 refusing the applicant the household allowance for the year 2019;










—


annul further, if need be, the decisions of 24 April 2019 and 26 August 2019 respectively rejecting the applicant’s request for administrative review and the applicant’s grievance procedure;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of acquired rights.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the ‘effet utile’ of the household allowance and of Article 15 of the Conditions of Employment of the ECB.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of the duty of care.
Case C-813/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (France) lodged on 5 November 2019 — MN
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, France, executive power, independence of the judiciary, judicial power, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2020019EN.01003401.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (France) lodged on 5 November 2019 — MN
(Case C-813/19)
(2020/C 19/35)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d'Aix-en-Provence

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: MN

Other parties: RJA, RJO, FD, BG, PG, KL, LK, MJ, NI, OH

Questions referred







1.


Do the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant by the French prosecuting authorities, as provided for in Articles 695-16 et seq. of the Code de procédure pénale (Code of criminal procedure), fully satisfy the requirements for effective judicial protection within the meaning of EU law?










2.


Do the French prosecuting authorities fulfil the requirements for classification as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002? (1)







(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1)
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operationsRate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.: 0,00 % on 1 November 2019 Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 4 November 20192019/C 373/03
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2019373EN.01000301.xml










5.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/3






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 November 2019
Euro exchange rates (2)

4 November 2019
(2019/C 373/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1158 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,93 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4713 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86368 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7035 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1021 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1668 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,511 




HUF


Hungarian forint


328,78 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2588 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7542 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3483 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6158 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4680 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7461 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7358 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5146 




KRW


South Korean won


1 296,92 




ZAR


South African rand


16,5296 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8425 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4488 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 643,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6311 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,376 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,5726 




THB


Thai baht


33,689 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4644 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3095 




INR


Indian rupee


78,9205 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global REIT) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 373/07
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2019373EN.01001601.xml










5.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global REIT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 373/07)

1.   
On 25 October 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:






—


The Blackstone Group Inc. (‘Blackstone’, US),










—


Dream Global Real Estate Investment Trust (‘Dream Global REIT’, Canada).




Blackstone acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Dream Global REIT.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets and other means.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Blackstone: a global asset manager, active in the real estate sector in Europe,










—


for Dream Global REIT: an open-ended real estate investment trust operating in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium.






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.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global REIT
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-816/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 November 2019 — QF v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2019-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2020045EN.01002401.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 November 2019 — QF v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-816/19)
(2020/C 45/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QF

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Question referred

Does a trade union organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).