do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-945/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘OC Finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, contract terms, cost of borrowing, deadline for payment








C_2020137EN.01002901.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘OC Finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
(Case C-945/19)
(2020/C 137/39)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: SIA ‘OC Finance’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in Case C-944/19.
Case C-943/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘ONDO’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, contract terms, cost of borrowing, deadline for payment








C_2020137EN.01002702.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘ONDO’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
(Case C-943/19)
(2020/C 137/37)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: SIA ‘ONDO’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred







1.


Is the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, (1) an autonomous concept of EU law?










2.


Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 23 December 20192019/C 434/07
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019434EN.01000701.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/7






Euro exchange rates (1)

23 December 2019
(2019/C 434/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1075 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,18 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4719 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85708 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4473 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0870 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9130 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,499 




HUF


Hungarian forint


331,24 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2609 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7733 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5834 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6008 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4577 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6232 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6732 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5018 




KRW


South Korean won


1 288,52 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7605 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7652 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4460 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 489,50 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5878 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,471 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,0297 




THB


Thai baht


33,408 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5220 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0016 




INR


Indian rupee


78,9455 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 24 December 20192019/C 434/08
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019434EN.01000801.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 December 2019
(2019/C 434/08)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1080 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,19 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4712 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85533 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4553 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0878 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9118 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,485 




HUF


Hungarian forint


331,76 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2598 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7790 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5994 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6019 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4582 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6290 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6716 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5017 




KRW


South Korean won


1 287,71 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7264 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7643 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4455 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 495,40 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5832 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,331 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,7932 




THB


Thai baht


33,412 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5246 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0106 




INR


Indian rupee


78,9525 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-944/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — AS ‘4finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, contract terms, cost of borrowing, deadline for payment








C_2020137EN.01002801.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — AS ‘4finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
(Case C-944/19)
(2020/C 137/38)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: AS ‘4finance’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred







1.


Is the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, (1) an autonomous concept of EU law?










2.


Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Case C-946/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 27 December 2019 – MG v HH
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, injunction, jurisdiction, legal domicile, private international law, third country








C_2020068EN.01003602.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/36






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 27 December 2019 – MG v HH
(Case C-946/19)
(2020/C 68/39)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: MG

Respondent: HH

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) (‘Brussels I Recast’) confer a directly enforceable right upon a person domiciled in a Member State?










2.


If it does:






a)


Where such a right is breached by the bringing of proceedings against that person in a third State, is there an obligation upon the Member State to provide a remedy, including by the grant of an anti-suit injunction?










b)


Does any such obligation extend to a case where a cause of action available in the courts of a third State is not available under the law applicable in the courts of the Member State?










(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012, L 351, p. 1).
Corrigendum to the list of trusts and similar legal arrangements governed under the law of the Member States as notified to the Commission (This text annuls and replaces the text published in Official Journal C 360 of 24 October 2019, p. 28)2019/C 434/13
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: banking supervision, disclosure of information, economic offence, financial institution, money laundering, terrorism financing, trust company








C_2019434EN.01002701.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/27






Corrigendum to the list of trusts and similar legal arrangements governed under the law of the Member States as notified to the Commission

(This text annuls and replaces the text published in Official Journal C 360 of 24 October 2019, p. 28)

(2019/C 434/13)
The present consolidated list is published by the European Commission in accordance with Article 31(10) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (1), as amended. The list is based exclusively on the trusts or similar legal arrangements notified by Member States by 10 September 2019.






Member State


Trust or similar legal arrangement notified




Belgium


Fideï-commis de residuo




Bulgaria


None




Czechia


Svěřenský fond




Denmark


None




Germany


No notification




Estonia


None




Ireland


Express trusts




Greece


None




Spain


None




France


Fiducies




Croatia


None




Italy (2)









a)


Mandato fiduciario










b)


Vincolo di destinazione








Cyprus (2)









a)


Εμπιστεύματα










b)


Διεθνή εμπιστεύματα








Latvia


None




Lithuania


None




Luxembourg (2)



Contrats fiduciaires




Hungary


Bizalmi vagyonkezelő




Malta








a)


Trusts










b)


Foundations








Netherlands (2)



Fonds voor gemene rekening




Austria


No notification




Poland


None




Portugal


No notification




Romania


Fiducia




Slovenia


None




Slovakia


None




Finland


None




Sweden


None




United Kingdom


Express trusts






(1)  OJ L 141 5.6.2015, p. 73


(2)  Trusts are recognised based on provisions of the Hague Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9606 — ENGIE/Omnes Capital/Predica/EGI8 Portfolio) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 434/04
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, gas supply, health insurance, investment company, life assurance, merger control, renewable energy








C_2019434EN.01000401.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/4






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9606 — ENGIE/Omnes Capital/Predica/EGI8 Portfolio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 434/04)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 22 November 2019, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 18 December 2019, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.


(1)  OJ C 403, 29.11.2019, p. 72.
Case T-882/19: Action brought on 27 December 2019 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ)
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020068EN.01005001.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/50






Action brought on 27 December 2019 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ)
(Case T-882/19)
(2020/C 68/59)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Kerangus Holdings Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the figurative mark ΑΠΛΑ! — Application for registration No 15 554 918

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 in Case R 1035/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present action;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant trade mark application No. 015554918/17.06.2016‘ΑΠΛΑ! and representation’ for all the goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs pursuant to Article 190(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment with respect to all EU applicants.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9596 — ENGIE/Predica/Omnes/Langa) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 434/05
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, gas supply, health insurance, investment company, life assurance, merger control, renewable energy, solar energy, wind energy








C_2019434EN.01000501.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/5






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.9596 — ENGIE/Predica/Omnes/Langa)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 434/05)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 22 November 2019, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 18 December 2019, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.


(1)  Publication in OJ C 403, 22.11.2019, p. 70.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative (OJ L 130, 17.5.2019)
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU initiative, European citizenship, data collection, data protection, participatory democracy, personal data, petition, power of initiative








L_2019334EN.01016801.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 334/168







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative

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








1.


On the contents page:





for:



                  ‘Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative (1)’,


read:



                  ‘Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative’.







2.


On page 55:





for:



                  ‘REGULATION (EU) 2019/788 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative (Text with EEA relevance)’,


read:



                  ‘REGULATION (EU) 2019/788 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative’.
Case C-941/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2019 — Samohýl group a. s. v Generální ředitelství cel
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, domestic animal, specification of tariff heading, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020068EN.01003601.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2019 — Samohýl group a. s. v Generální ředitelství cel
(Case C-941/19)
(2020/C 68/38)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Samohýl group a. s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Question referred

Should the product labelled ‘Bob Martin Clear 50 mg roztok pro nakapání na kůži — spot-on pro kočky’ made available in pipettes (0.5 ml), which contains the active substance fipronil (50 mg per pipette) and the excipients butylated hydroxyanisole E 320, butylated hydroxytoluene E 321, benzyl alcohol and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, be classified under heading 3004 or heading 3808 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Customs Tariff?
Case T-883/19: Action brought on 27 December 2019 – Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO – Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2020068EN.01005101.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/51






Action brought on 27 December 2019 – Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO – Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)
(Case T-883/19)
(2020/C 68/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark HELIX ELIXIR – Application for registration No 15 035 991

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 100/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


allow the present Appeal;










—


annul the contested decision; and/or










—


set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) and enter a finding to the effect that there does not exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;










—


issue a new Resolution granting EUTM Application No 15 035 991 HELIX ELIXIR for all the applied goods; and










—


order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) 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
Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018)
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: Internet, consumer protection, information technology, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, single market, trans-European network, transmission network, universal service




L_2019334EN.01016401.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 334/164







Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 321 of 17 December 2018
)








1.


On page 122, point (b) of Article 32(4):





for:







‘(b)


designate an undertaking as having, either individually or jointly with others, significant market power, under Article 67(3) or (4);’,





read:







‘(b)


decide whether or not to designate an undertaking as having, either individually or jointly with others, significant market power, under Article 67(3) or (4);’.










2.


On page 145, first subparagraph of Article 61(1):





for:



‘1.   National regulatory authorities or other competent authorities in the case of points (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article shall, acting in pursuit of the objectives set out in Article 3, …’,



read:



‘1.   National regulatory authorities or, in the case of points (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article, national regulatory authorities or other competent authorities shall, acting in pursuit of the objectives set out in Article 3, …’.








3.


On page 145, first subparagraph of Article 61(2):





for:



‘2.   In particular, without prejudice to measures that may be taken regarding undertakings designated as having significant market power in accordance with Article 68, national regulatory authorities, or other competent authorities in the case of points (b) and (c) of this subparagraph, shall be able to impose: …’,



read:



‘2.   In particular, without prejudice to measures that may be taken regarding undertakings designated as having significant market power in accordance with Article 68, national regulatory authorities or, in the case of points (b) and (c) of this subparagraph, national regulatory authorities or other competent authorities shall be able to impose: …’.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9607 — ENGIE/Omnes Capital/Predica/EGI9 Portfolio) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 434/03
Date: 2019-12-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy production, gas supply, health insurance, investment company, life assurance, merger control, soft energy








C_2019434EN.01000301.xml










27.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 434/3






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9607 — ENGIE/Omnes Capital/Predica/EGI9 Portfolio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 434/03)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 22 November 2019, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 18 December 2019, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.


(1)  OJ C 405, 2.12.2019, p. 12.