do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-625/18: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — FT v ESMA (Civil service — Withdrawal of debit note issued by ESMA — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: claim, debt, equality before the law, legal expenses








C_2020137EN.01004801.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/48






Order of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — FT v ESMA
(Case T-625/18) (1)

(Civil service - Withdrawal of debit note issued by ESMA - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 137/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FT (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: G. Filippa and F. Barzanti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of ESMA’s letter of 9 August 2018, which was notified to the applicant on 10 August 2018 and by which the ESMA requested reimbursement of EUR 12 000 in relation to costs in the case that gave rise to the judgment of 8 October 2015, FT v ESMA (F-39/14, EU:F:2015:117), and, secondly, of debit note No 4440180170, which was issued by ESMA on 10 August 2018, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 5 February 20202020/C 40/01
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020040EN.01000101.xml










6.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 February 2020
(2020/C 40/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1023 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,94 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4728 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84444 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5450 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0717 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1173 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,055 




HUF


Hungarian forint


335,76 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2491 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7734 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5975 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6299 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4644 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5572 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7006 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5202 




KRW


South Korean won


1 302,97 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2246 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6858 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4568 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 036,47 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5382 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,961 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,0320 




THB


Thai baht


34,133 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6614 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,4923 




INR


Indian rupee


78,4330 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9714 — Viacom/beIN/Miramax) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 40/06
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: culture industry, economic concentration, film industry, mass media, merger control, programmes industry








C_2020040EN.01003501.xml










6.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/35






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9714 — Viacom/beIN/Miramax)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 40/06)

1.   
On 29 January 2020, 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:






—


Viacom International Inc. (‘Viacom’, USA), belonging to ViacomCBS Inc.,










—


beIN Media Group, LLC (‘beIN’, Qatar), belonging to beIN Corporation,










—


MMX Media Finance, LLC (‘Miramax’, USA), currently solely controlled by beIN.




Viacom and beIN acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Miramax.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Viacom: global media and entertainment company,










—


for beIN: entertainment company active, inter alia, in the sports media business,










—


for Miramax: entertainment company producing and distributing films and television shows.






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.9714 — Viacom/beIN/Miramax
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 T-485/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission documents relating to the interpretation of a provision of EU law — Documents originating from a third party — Documents originating from a Member State — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Partial refusal to grant access — Total refusal to grant access — Obligation to state reasons — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law, France, access to EU information, contract, interpretation of the law, opinion (EU), underground railway








C_2020095EN.01002302.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/23






Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission
(Case T-485/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission documents relating to the interpretation of a provision of EU law - Documents originating from a third party - Documents originating from a Member State - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Partial refusal to grant access - Total refusal to grant access - Obligation to state reasons - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Overriding public interest)
(2020/C 95/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA (Corunna, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 7 June 2018 refusing, partially or totally, to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the Commission’s opinion sent to the French Republic concerning the fact that the metro lines contract is valid until 2039.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 June 2018 refusing, partially or totally, to grant Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA, access to documents relating to the Commission’s opinion sent to the French Republic concerning the fact that the metro lines contract is valid until 2039, in so far as it refused in part to grant access to the data other than personal data contained in the letter of 25 October 2010 sent by the Commission to the French authorities and in the letters of 27 July 2012 and 5 June 2013 sent by the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Kallas, to the RATP;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña;










4.


Orders Compañía de Tranvías de la Coruña to bear four fifths of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
Case C-64/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 6 February 2020 — UH v Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland and Attorney General
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, discretionary power, labelling, national implementing measure, official language, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020162EN.01000201.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 162/2






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 6 February 2020 — UH v Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland and Attorney General
(Case C-64/20)
(2020/C 162/02)
Language of the case: Irish

Referring court

High Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UH

Defendants: Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland and Attorney General

Questions referred







1.


Does a national court have discretion to refuse relief in spite of its decision that national law has failed to give effect to a particular aspect of a directive of the European Union (EU) and, if the court does have that discretion, what are the appropriate factors that should be taken into account in relation to the discretion and/or is the national court entitled to take into account those same factors which it would take into account if it were dealing with a breach of national law?










2.


Would the principle of direct effect in EU law be undermined if the national court refused to grant relief in this case due to the entry into force of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 (the application of which is deferred until 28 January 2022), in spite of the fact that the national court decided that national law has failed to give effect to the duty in Articles 61(1), 58(4) and 59(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC (2), that duty being that the packaging and labelling of veterinary products must be in the official languages of the Member State, that is to say, in Irish as well as English, in Ireland?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ 2019, L 4, p. 43).

(2)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 1).
Case T-135/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals v EUIPO — Dalmat (LaTV3D) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LaTV3D — Earlier national word mark TV3 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, education, interpreting, provision of services, publishing, registered trade mark, sport, telecommunications, trade-mark law, translation








C_2020095EN.01002802.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/28






Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals v EUIPO — Dalmat (LaTV3D)
(Case T-135/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark LaTV3D - Earlier national word mark TV3 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Distinctive character - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 95/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Stéphane Dalmat (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2018 (Case R 874/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals and Mr Dalmat.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 December 2018 (Case R 874/2018-2) in so far as it ruled out the existence of a likelihood of confusion in relation to the services other than ‘translation and interpretation’ services in Class 41 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;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case C-62/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2020 — NV Vogel Import Export v Belgische Staat
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading, wood product








C_2020201EN.01000901.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2020 — NV Vogel Import Export v Belgische Staat
(Case C-62/20)
(2020/C 201/14)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NV Vogel Import Export

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Should the [Combined Nomenclature] (1)— in the light also of the various language versions of tariff heading 4409 and the HS Explanatory Notes to tariff headings 4407 and 4409 — be interpreted as meaning that the goods which are the subject of the main proceedings, namely, planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been rounded over the entire length of the board, are to be regarded as being ‘continuously shaped’ and accordingly should be classified under tariff heading 4409 or can the rounding of the corners not be regarded as being ‘continuously shaped’ and should the goods therefore be classified under tariff heading 4407?










2.


Is the size of the rounding determinative for classification under tariff heading 4407 or tariff heading 4409?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1)
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures2020/C 40/05
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, United States, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, plate








C_2020040EN.01003401.xml










6.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/34






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2020/C 40/05)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, B-1049 Brussels Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Certain grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel


The People’s Republic of China
Japan
The Republic of Korea
The Russian Federation
The United States of America


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1953 of 29 October 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain-oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America
(OJ L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109)


31.10.2020






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.9569 — EssilorLuxottica/GrandVision) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 49/02
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, optical industry, retail selling








C_2020049EN.01000201.xml










13.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/2






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.9569 — EssilorLuxottica/GrandVision)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 49/02)
On 6 February 2020, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No. M.9569 — EssilorLuxottica/GrandVision, to the following 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’).
Case T-71/20: Action brought on 6 February 2020 — Puma v EUIPO — CAMäleon (PUMA-System)
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catalogue, computer equipment, machine tool, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, user guide








C_2020114EN.01001202.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/12






Action brought on 6 February 2020 — Puma v EUIPO — CAMäleon (PUMA-System)
(Case T-71/20)
(2020/C 114/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. GonzálezBueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung GmbH (Dettenhausen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PUMA-System — Application for registration No 16 786 907

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2019 in Case R 404/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Breach of the principle of sound administration;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b), Article 94 and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-137/18: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dresden — Germany) — hapeg dresden gmbh v Bayrische Straße 6-8 GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Legislation of a Member State providing for a minimum tariff for the fees of engineers and architects)
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: engineer, freedom to provide services, minimum pay, remuneration of work, town-planning profession








C_2020313EN.01000201.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/2






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dresden — Germany) — hapeg dresden gmbh v Bayrische Straße 6-8 GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-137/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Legislation of a Member State providing for a minimum tariff for the fees of engineers and architects)
(2020/C 313/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Dresden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: hapeg dresden gmbh

Defendant: Bayrische Straße 6-8 GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the order

Article 15(1)(2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which it is prohibited to agree, in contracts concluded with architects or engineers, tariffs lower than the minimum amounts determined in accordance with the rules on fees for architects and engineers laid down in that legislation.


(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.