do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7622 — Dufry/World Duty Free) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, retail trade, tourism








C_2015224EN.01000601.xml










9.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 224/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7622 — Dufry/World Duty Free)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 224/06)






1.


On 1 July 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Dufry AG (‘Dufry’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking World Duty Free SpA (‘World Duty Free’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Dufry is a global travel retail business which operates retail outlets in airports and other transport hubs.










—


World Duty Free is a global travel retail business which operates retail outlets in airports and other transport hubs.














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.










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. 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 number M.7622 — Dufry/World Duty Free, 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 C-177/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 3 and 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — ‘Non-permanent staff’ — Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment — Objective grounds)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, auxiliary worker, equal treatment, framework agreement, seniority, supplementary income, temporary employment








C_2015294EN.01000901.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/9






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado
(Case C-177/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 3 and 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - ‘Non-permanent staff’ - Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment - Objective grounds))
(2015/C 294/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: María José Regojo Dans

Defendant: Consejo de Estado

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of a ‘fixed-term worker’, within the meaning of clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as applying to a worker such as the applicant in the main proceedings.










2.


Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, without justification on objective grounds, non-permanent staff from the right to receive a three-yearly length-of-service increment granted, inter alia, to career civil servants when, as regards the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain.






(1)  
            OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-371/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Preferisco Foods v OHIM — Piccardo & Savore' (PREFERISCO)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015311EN.01005301.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/53





Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Preferisco Foods v OHIM — Piccardo & Savore' (PREFERISCO)
(Case T-371/15)
(2015/C 311/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Preferisco Foods Ltd (Vancouver, Canada) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piccardo & Savore' Srl (Chiusavecchia, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PREFERISCO’ — Community trade mark No 10 974 616

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 2598/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM dated 15 April 2015, in Case R-2598/2013-2, in particular regarding the rejection of the CTM application No 10974616 ‘PREFERISCO’ for the goods applied for in classes 29 and 30;










—


order that costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant, including the costs those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein, dated 9 July 2015, in the Case of Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG (Case E-16/15)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, disclosure of information, insurance company, interpretation of the law, investment company, life assurance








C_2016357EN.01003101.xml










29.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/31





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein, dated 9 July 2015, in the Case of Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG
(Case E-16/15)
(2016/C 357/11)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 July 2015 from Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein (The Supreme Court, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG, on the following questions:






1.


Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that the duties to provide information referred to therein and in Annex III(A)(a)(11) and (a)(12) and (B)(b)(2) for unit-linked life assurance policies must also be fulfilled in the case where a person who, by a legal transaction, has acquired a unit-linked life assurance policy from another person with the consent of the assurer through the transfer of the contract (‘second-hand policies’)?




In the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, the following additional question is asked:






2.


Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the legal transfer of the contract for a unit-linked life assurance policy, only general information must be provided to the new policy holder or is the assurance company also required to provide the new policy holder with information specifically regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him, in particular regarding any differences between the risk profiles of the existing policy holder and of the transferee?










3.


Are the provisions concerning the assurer’s obligations under Annex III(B)(b)(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance effectively transposed into national law even if national law provides, in Annex 4(II)(2) of the Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetz (Law on insurance supervision, VersAG), in the case of unit-linked assurance policies, that during the term of an assurance contract information must be provided on the units underlying the assurance policy and the nature of the assets contained therein only where the changes in the information provided stem from ‘amendments of the law’ but not also ‘in the event of a change in the policy conditions’ (Annex III(B)(b)(2) to Directive 2002/83/EC)?
Case F-101/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, directory, promotion








C_2015302EN.01007001.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/70





Action brought on 9 July 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
(Case F-101/15)
(2015/C 302/86)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 under the 2014 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of 29 October 2014 drawing up the list of officials promoted under the 2014 promotion procedure in so far as it does not include his name;










—


order the EEAS to pay the costs.
Corrigendum to Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ L 82, 22.3.2001)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: approximation of laws, labour law, transfer of businesses, worker consultation, worker information








L_2015181EN.01008401.xml










9.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 181/84







Corrigendum to Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses

(
Official Journal of the European Communities L 82 of 22 March 2001
)


On page 18, Article 6(1), second subparagraph, first line:
for:

               ‘The first subparagraph shall not supply if, under the laws, …’,
read:

               ‘The first subparagraph shall not apply if, under the laws, …’.
Case C-346/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Steinbeck GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13 Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2015302EN.01002201.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/22





Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Steinbeck GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13 Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-346/15 P)
(2015/C 302/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Steinbeck GmbH (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 30 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal is in breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1):






1.


The single ground stated by the General Court for holding that the mark ‘BE HAPPY’ lacked distinctive character was that it could be perceived as an advertising slogan. That is directly contradictory to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which that alone is not sufficient to exclude distinctive character.










2.


The General Court failed further to set out any specific connection between the mark ‘BE HAPPY’ and the goods for which that mark was to be registered which did not require some interpretation by the relevant public. On the contrary an arbitrary link between the goods and the sign was made, which, even if it were correct, required an effort of interpretation from the relevant public.










3.


The General Court thereby erred in law in applying the criteria for the assessment of the distinctive character of the mark ‘BE HAPPY’.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-100/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CAMOMILLA — Earlier national figurative mark Camomilla — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Additional evidence brought before the Board of Appeal)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015279EN.01003301.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/33






Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA)
(Case T-100/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CAMOMILLA - Earlier national figurative mark Camomilla - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Additional evidence brought before the Board of Appeal))
(2015/C 279/40)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia, M. Franzoni and G. Rubino, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and M. Mussi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (case R 1616/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between CMT — Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) and Camomilla SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 29 November 2012 (case R 1616/2011-1);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl).










3.


Orders CAMOMILLA SpA to pay its own cost.






(1)  
            OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7695 — BlackRock/First Reserve/Engie/TAG Pipelines Sur) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, gas supply, investment company, merger control








C_2015224EN.01000501.xml










9.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 224/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7695 — BlackRock/First Reserve/Engie/TAG Pipelines Sur)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 224/05)






1.


On 30 June 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which BlackRock, Inc. (‘BlackRock’, USA), First Reserve Management, LP (‘First Reserve’, USA) and GDF Suez SA (‘Engie’, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking TAG Pipelines Sur, S. de R.L. de C.V. (‘TAG Pipelines Sur’, Mexico) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   BlackRock: Publically-traded asset manager, managing assets on behalf of its clients, as well as providing risk management and advisory services.
—   First Reserve: A private equity firm specialized in the energy industry, including oilfield services, energy infrastructure, and power and energy reserves.
—   Engie: The group is active across the entire energy chain, in electricity and natural gas.
—   TAG Pipelines Sur: Construction and operation of the Los Ramones II (Sur) gas pipeline in Mexico.










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 this 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. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7695 – BlackRock/First Reserve/Engie/TAG Pipelines Sur 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.