do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9687 – CPPIB/OTPP/IDEAL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 29/01
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, logistics, merger control, transport infrastructure, urban infrastructure








C_2020029EN.01000101.xml










28.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9687 – CPPIB/OTPP/IDEAL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 29/01)
On 22 January 2020, 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 32020M9687. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9574 — Associated British Foods/Wilmar International/AB Mauri Yihai Kerry China Investment Holding Company) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 30/02
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agro-industry, consumer goods, economic concentration, flour milling, investment company, merger control, oil mill, retail trade, sugar industry, sugar refining








C_2020030EN.01000401.xml










29.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9574 — Associated British Foods/Wilmar International/AB Mauri Yihai Kerry China Investment Holding Company)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 30/02)
On 22 January 2020, 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 32020M9574. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-31/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 22 January 2020 — Bankia, S.A. v SI
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, limitation of legal proceedings, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2020161EN.01002502.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 22 January 2020 — Bankia, S.A. v SI
(Case C-31/20)
(2020/C 161/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

Defendant: SI

Questions referred







1.


Is a judicial interpretation (according to which the repayment of sums unduly paid under a costs clause included in a mortgage loan agreement concluded with a consumer is the effect not of a declaration of invalidity but of an independent action subject to a limitation period) which allows a consumer to be permanently bound by the costs clause, inasmuch as he will not be able to recover those costs if that action has become time-barred, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, recognised in Article 6(1) of Directive (1) [93/13]?










2.


Is the act of time-barring a claim for the restitution of sums unduly paid pursuant to the application of a clause which has been declared unfair compatible with that principle, inasmuch as it may cause the right to restitution to be lost, notwithstanding the declaration as to the invalidity of that clause?










3.


If the answer is in the affirmative, is the concept of a ‘reasonable limitation period’ to which the Court of Justice refers to be interpreted within an exclusively national context or, conversely, must reasonableness be subject to some form of requirement aimed at providing a minimum level of protection for borrowers throughout the European Union and ensuring that the substantive content of the right not to be bound by a clause which has been declared unfair is not adversely affected?










4.


If the view is taken that the reasonableness of the limitation period must be subject to certain minimum preconditions, may reasonableness depend on the point in time at which a national law stipulates that the action may be brought?; is it reasonable for the limitation period to start to run on the date on which the agreement was concluded, or, conversely, does the principle that unfair terms are not binding require a prior or simultaneous declaration as to the invalidity of the costs clause so as to ensure that the borrower has a reasonable period within which to seek the reimbursement of the sums which have been unduly paid?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case T-35/18: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi 1824 (MARCHESI)
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, catering industry, education, foodstuff, hand tool, household article, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01006101.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/61






Order of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi 1824 (MARCHESI)
(Case T-35/18) (1)

(2020/C 77/83)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 21 January 20202020/C 21/03
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020021EN.01000301.xml










22.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 January 2020
(2020/C 21/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1115 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,31 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4725 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85030 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5523 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0743 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9360 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,066 




HUF


Hungarian forint


335,32 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2438 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7785 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5938 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6177 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4512 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6362 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6811 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4994 




KRW


South Korean won


1 298,12 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0899 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6732 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4375 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 197,89 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5255 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,689 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,7300 




THB


Thai baht


33,790 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6661 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8194 




INR


Indian rupee


79,1345 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-36/20: Action brought on 22 January 2020 — IF v Parliament
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European party, Liberal Party, Secretary General of an Institution, competence of the institution, indemnification, interest, legal status, rights of the defence








C_2020114EN.01001001.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/10






Action brought on 22 January 2020 — IF v Parliament
(Case T-36/20)
(2020/C 114/09)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: IF (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision 16 April 2019 relieving the applicant of her duties as Deputy Secretary General of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe;










—


order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;










—


order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 1 000 in compensation for the impossibility to restore the applicant in her original legal position, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act and breach of ‘the principle of congruent forms’.






—


It is argued in that regard that, whereas the contested decision was adopted by the Presidency of the Group, it should have been adopted by the Bureau thereof.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard before a measure affecting one adversely is taken.






—


It is argued in that regard that the applicant was not given the opportunity to effectively put forward her point of view, before the contested decision was adopted.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly, impartially and carefully, and failure to state adequate reasons.






—


It is argued in that regard that:






—


the Presidency was not presented with all the relevant particulars of the case concerned with care and impartiality, before adopting the contested decision; and










—


in endorsing the note of the Secretary General of the Group of 12 April 2019, which contained erroneous grounds, the Presidency tainted the contested decision with the same defect.
Case T-751/18: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — Daimler v Commission (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of certified CO2 savings — Eco-innovations scheme — Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: approval, greenhouse gas, innovation, motor car, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions








C_2020077EN.01004901.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/49






Order of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — Daimler v Commission
(Case T-751/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of certified CO2 savings - Eco-innovations scheme - Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 77/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Wimmer, C. Arhold and G. Ollinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Becker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission letter Ares(2018) 5413709 of 22 October 2018 notifying the withdrawal of CO2 savings achieved by eco-innovations attributed to Daimler AG vehicles fitted with Bosch HED EL 7-150 and 175 plus high efficient alternators.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



Daimler AG is ordered to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case C-30/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.° 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 22 January 2020 — RH v AB Volvo and Others
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2020161EN.01002501.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 22 January 2020 — RH v AB Volvo and Others
(Case C-30/20)
(2020/C 161/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RH

Defendants: AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España, S. A.

Question referred

Should Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which establishes that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State: ‘… in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’, be interpreted as establishing only the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State for the aforesaid place, meaning that the national court with territorial jurisdiction within that State is to be determined by reference to domestic rules of procedure, or should it be interpreted as a combined rule which, therefore, directly determines both international jurisdiction and national territorial jurisdiction, without any need to refer to domestic regulation?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case C-175/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 — PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v European Medicines Agency, European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope) (Appeal — Access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — First indent of Article 4(2) — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Article 4(3) — Protection of the decision-making process — Documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a medicinal product for human use — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — General presumption of confidentiality — No obligation for an EU institution, body, office or agency to apply a general presumption of confidentiality)
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, market approval, medicinal product, trade information








C_2020077EN.01000202.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 — PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v European Medicines Agency, European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope)
(Case C-175/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - First indent of Article 4(2) - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Article 4(3) - Protection of the decision-making process - Documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a medicinal product for human use - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - General presumption of confidentiality - No obligation for an EU institution, body, office or agency to apply a general presumption of confidentiality)
(2020/C 77/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (represented by: G. Castle, B. Kelly, and K. Ewert, Solicitors, and by C. Thomas, Barrister, and M. Demetriou QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (initially represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Marino, S. Drosos, A. Spina and A. Rusanov, and subsequently by T. Jabłoński, S. Marino and S. Drosos, acting as Agents), European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope) (represented by: S. Cowlishaw, Solicitor, and D. Scannell, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders PTC Therapeutics International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA);










3.


Orders the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case C-32/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — AT v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 17(1)(a) — Right of permanent residence — Acquisition before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence — Workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age for entitlement to an old age pension)
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, pension scheme, residence permit, retired person, retirement conditions








C_2020077EN.01000701.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/7






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — AT v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
(Case C-32/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 17(1)(a) - Right of permanent residence - Acquisition before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence - Workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age for entitlement to an old age pension)
(2020/C 77/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AT

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of acquiring the right of permanent residence in the host Member State before completion of a continuous period of 5 years of residence, the conditions that a person must have been working in that Member State at least for the preceding 12 months and must have resided in that Member State continuously for more than 3 years apply to workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age laid down by the law of that Member State for entitlement to an old age pension.


(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9658 — Daiwa Securities Group/Aquila Holding/Aquila Capital Holding) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 30/03
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, holding company, investment company, merger control








C_2020030EN.01000501.xml










29.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9658 — Daiwa Securities Group/Aquila Holding/Aquila Capital Holding)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 30/03)
On 22 January 2020, 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 32020M9658. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-178/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 — MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet International BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA) (Appeal — Access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — First indent of Article 4(2) — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Article 4(3) — Protection of the decision-making process — Documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a veterinary medicinal product — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — General presumption of confidentiality — No obligation for an EU institution, body, office or agency to apply a general presumption of confidentiality)
Date: 2020-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, market approval, trade information, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020077EN.01000401.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 — MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet International BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA)
(Case C-178/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - First indent of Article 4(2) - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Article 4(3) - Protection of the decision-making process - Documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a veterinary medicinal product - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - General presumption of confidentiality - No obligation for an EU institution, body, office or agency to apply a general presumption of confidentiality)
(2020/C 77/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet International BV (represented by: C. Thomas, Barrister, J. Stratford QC, B. Kelly, Solicitor, and P. Bogaert, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (initially represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Marino, S. Drosos and A. Rusanov, subsequently by T. Jabłoński, S. Marino and S. Drosos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet International BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).






(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.