do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-691/19: Order of the President of the Court of 6 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Banco Santander, SA v VF, WD
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, limitation of legal proceedings, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2020137EN.01004503.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/45






Order of the President of the Court of 6 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Banco Santander, SA v VF, WD
(Case C-691/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/71)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of a company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies2019/C 410/07
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, business name, ceramics, household article, import (EU), originating product








C_2019410EN.01001501.xml










6.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/15






Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China: name change of a company subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies
(2019/C 410/07)
Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware (‘tableware’) originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 (1).
Chaozhou Baodayi Porcelain Co., Ltd., TARIC (2) additional code B375, a company located in the People’s Republic of China whose exports to the Union of tableware are subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies of 17,9 % informed the Commission that it had changed its name as set out below.
The company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the anti-dumping duty rate applied to the company under its previous name.
The Commission examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) 2019/1198.
Therefore, the references in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 to:






Chaozhou Baodayi Porcelain Co., Ltd.


B375




should be read as:






Guangdong Baodayi Porcelain Co., Ltd.


B375




The TARIC additional code B375 previously attributed to Chaozhou Baodayi Porcelain Co., Ltd. shall apply to Guangdong Baodayi Porcelain Co., Ltd.


(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 of 12 July 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (OJ L 189, 15.7.2019, p. 8).

(2)  The Integrated Tariff of the European Union.
Case T-835/19: Action brought on 6 December 2019 – CrossFit v EUIPO – Hochwarter (CROSSBOX)
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sport, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020036EN.01003801.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/38






Action brought on 6 December 2019 – CrossFit v EUIPO – Hochwarter (CROSSBOX)
(Case T-835/19)
(2020/C 36/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CrossFit Inc. (Scotts Valley, California, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marlis Hochwarter (Vienna, Austria)

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 figurative mark CROSSBOX – European Union trade mark No 12 503 471

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 1832/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) corroborated with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) corroborated with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 of the Council.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (Official Journal of the European Union L 130 of 17 May 2019)
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, consumer information, designation of origin, ethanol, foodstuff, labelling, marketing standard, product designation




LI2019316EN.01000301.xml










6.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 316/3







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 130 of 17 May 2019
)


On page 30, Article 51(2):
for:


‘2.   Nothwithstanding paragraph 1, Article 16, point (c) of Article 20, Articles 21, 22 and 23, Article 24(1), (2) and (3), the first and second subparagraphs of Article 24(4), Article 24(8) and (9), Articles 25 to 42, Articles 46 and 47, Article 50(1), (4) and (6), points 39(d) and 40(d) of Annex I and the definitions set out in Article 3 relating to those provisions shall apply from 8 June 2019.’,


read:


‘2.   Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Article 14(2), Article 16, point (c) of Article 20, Articles 21, 22 and 23, Article 24(1), (2) and (3), the first and second subparagraphs of Article 24(4), Article 24(8) and (9), Articles 25 to 42, Articles 46 and 47, Article 50(1), (4) and (6), points 39(d) and 40(d) of Annex I and the definitions set out in Article 3 relating to those provisions shall apply from 8 June 2019.’.


On page 32, Annex I, point 4 ‘Wine spirit’, point (a)(i):
for:






‘(i)


it is produced exclusively by the distillation at less than 86 % vol. of wine, wine fortified for distillation or wine distillate distilled at less than 86 % vol.;’,




read:






‘(i)


it is produced exclusively by the distillation at less than 86 % vol. of wine, wine fortified for distillation or wine distillate;’.
Case T-833/19: Action brought on 6 December 2019 — Grammer v EUIPO (Representation of a geometric figure)
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, electronic equipment, information technology industry, precision engineering, registered trade mark, scientific research, trade-mark law, traineeship, vehicle parts








C_2020045EN.01008502.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/85






Action brought on 6 December 2019 — Grammer v EUIPO (Representation of a geometric figure)
(Case T-833/19)
(2020/C 45/71)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Grammer AG (Amberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark (Representation of a geometric figure) — Application for registration No 15 389 621

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2019 in Case R 1478/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1890 of 11 November 2019 concerning restrictive measures in view of Turkey’s unauthorised drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Official Journal of the European Union L 291 of 12 November 2019)
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cyprus, EU restrictive measure, Mediterranean region (EU), Türkiye, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, oil industry








L_2019316EN.01010701.xml










6.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 316/107







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1890 of 11 November 2019 concerning restrictive measures in view of Turkey’s unauthorised drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean

(Official Journal of the European Union L 291 of 12 November 2019)


On page 8, in Article 12(1):
for:


                  ‘Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 3, it shall amend Annex I accordingly.’,

read:


                  ‘Where the Council decides to subject a natural or legal person, entity or body to the measures referred to in Article 2, it shall amend Annex I accordingly.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9655 — HG/GA/Argus) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 98/04
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aid to undertakings, assessment of prices, economic concentration, investment company, market research, merger control, technology








C_2020098EN.01000401.xml










25.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9655 — HG/GA/Argus)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 98/04)
On 6 December 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 32019M9655. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9399 — Remondis/ALFA Rohstoffhandel München/Geiger Beteiligung/Durmin Beteiligung/Garching Hochbrück) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 425/01
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hazardous waste, industrial waste, merger control, metal waste, sale, subsidiary, waste disposal, waste recycling








C_2019425EN.01000101.xml










18.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9399 — Remondis/ALFA Rohstoffhandel München/Geiger Beteiligung/Durmin Beteiligung/Garching Hochbrück)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 425/01)
On 6 December 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 German language 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 32019M9399. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9621 — Suez/Itochu/SFC/EDCO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 420/03
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hazardous waste, investment company, merger control, waste management, wastewater, water management








C_2019420EN.01000701.xml










13.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 420/7






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9621 — Suez/Itochu/SFC/EDCO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 420/03)
On 6 December 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 32019M9621. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-900/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 December 2019 — One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bird, hunting, hunting regulations, protection of animals








C_2020054EN.01004301.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/43






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 December 2019 — One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire
(Case C-900/19)
(2020/C 54/47)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux

Defendant: Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Intervener: Fédération nationale de la chasse

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding Member State from authorising the use of means, devices, methods of capture or killing capable of leading, even minimally and on a strictly temporary basis, to by-catch? Where appropriate, what criteria, relating in particular to the limited proportion or size of such by-catch, to what is in principle the non-lethal nature of the authorised hunting process and to the obligation to release without serious harm the specimens captured accidentally, may be applied in order for the selectivity criteria laid down in that provision to be considered to be satisfied?










2.


Must Directive [2009/147/EC] of 30 November 2009 be interpreted as meaning that the objective of preserving the use of traditional methods and means of hunting birds, for recreational purposes, and in so far as all the other conditions placed on such a derogation by subparagraph c of that paragraph are satisfied, may justify the absence of another satisfactory solution within the meaning of Article 9(1), thus permitting a derogation from the principle laid down in Article 8 that those methods and means of hunting are prohibited?






(1)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7).
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 5 December 20192019/C 410/04
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019410EN.01000901.xml










6.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 410/9






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 December 2019
(2019/C 410/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1094 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,69 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4716 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84470 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5418 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0964 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1613 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,526 




HUF


Hungarian forint


330,85 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2753 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7785 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3845 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6251 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4610 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6853 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6997 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5103 




KRW


South Korean won


1 320,69 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2774 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8125 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4390 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 603,71 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6256 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,402 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7798 




THB


Thai baht


33,676 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6794 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4895 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0195 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9652 — Marquard & Bahls/Starwood Capital/GCA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 431/04
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, energy industry, investment company, merger control, oil industry, real estate business, storage, supply








C_2019431EN.01000401.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9652 — Marquard & Bahls/Starwood Capital/GCA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 431/04)
On 6 December 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 32019M9652. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid








C_2019411EN.01000501.xml










6.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 411/5






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
(2019/C 411/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


07.10.2019




Aid number


SA.55089 (2019/N)




Member State


Germany




Region


DEUTSCHLAND


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Bund: Förderbereich 3A "Verbesserung der Verarbeitungs- und Vermarktungsstrukturen landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse" des GAK-Rahmenplans, Notifizierung der Förderung von mittelgroßen Unternehmen im Zusammenhang mit der Maßnahme 2.0 "Investitionen in die Verarbeitung und Vermarktung landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse"




Legal basis


Gesetz über die Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes" (GAK-Gesetz — GAKG)
Förderbereich 3A "Verbesserung der Verarbeitungs- und Vermarktungsstrukturen landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse" des Rahmensplans der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes"




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Aid for investment in connection with the processing of agricultural products and the marketing of agricultural products




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


—




Intensity


35 %




Duration (period)


01.01.2020 - 31.12.2020




Economic sectors


AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY AND FISHING, MANUFACTURING




Name and address of the granting authority


Zuständige Behörde des jeweiligen Bundeslandes




Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9655 — HG/GA/Argus) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 98/02
Date: 2019-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aid to undertakings, assessment of prices, economic concentration, investment company, market research, merger control, technology








C_2020098EN.01000201.xml










25.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9655 — HG/GA/Argus)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 98/02)
On 6 December 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 32019M9655. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.