do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8093 — EQT/Bilfinger Real Estate Solutions and Bilfinger Efficiency) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control, real estate business








C_2016255EN.01000401.xml










14.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8093 — EQT/Bilfinger Real Estate Solutions and Bilfinger Efficiency)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 255/04)






1.


On 5 July 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking EQT VII (‘EQT’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the undertakings Bilfinger Real Estate Solutions GmbH and Bilfinger Efficiency GmbH (‘Bilfinger’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for EQT: EQT is an investment fund launched in 2015. It makes investments primarily in northern Europe. EQT VII is part of the EQT group of private equity funds,
—   for Bilfinger: Bilfinger is a real estate solutions company active within three main divisions: (i) building; (ii) facility services; and (iii) real estate, with Germany as its main geographic focus.










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 email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.8093 — EQT/Bilfinger Real Estate Solutions and Bilfinger Efficiency, 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.
Case T-99/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alesa v Commission (Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of technical assistance to the Chinese authorities for the purposes of the project ‘Sustainable urbanisation project — Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK)’ — Negotiated procedure — Article 266(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 — Transparency — Equal treatment — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Europe, award of contract, equal treatment, indemnification, invitation to tender, services contract, technical cooperation, transparency in decision-making, urbanisation








C_2016314EN.01001802.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/18





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alesa v Commission
(Case T-99/14) (1)

((Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of technical assistance to the Chinese authorities for the purposes of the project ‘Sustainable urbanisation project - Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK)’ - Negotiated procedure - Article 266(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 - Transparency - Equal treatment - Non-contractual liability))
(2016/C 314/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Alesa Srl (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: N. Giampaolo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission decision, published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2013/S 234 405244), to award the public contract DCI-ASIA/2013/329-453, relating to the supply of technical assistance to the project ‘Sustainable urbanisation project — Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK)’ to a tenderer other than the applicant, secondly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for damage which the applicant allegedly suffered and, thirdly, an application based on Article 277 TFEU and requesting the General Court to assess ‘the lawfulness/unlawfulness and applicability/inapplicability’ of Article 266 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1), and of point 2.4.13 of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for European Union external actions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Alesa Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case T-567/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, clothing industry, computer equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01002302.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/23





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines)
(Case T-567/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 314/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 2368/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Case C-97/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8471 and 8521 — Explanatory notes — Agreement on trade in information technology products — ‘Screenplays’)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Netherlands, information technology applications, multimedia, screen, television equipment








C_2016335EN.01001301.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/13





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-97/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8471 and 8521 - Explanatory notes - Agreement on trade in information technology products - ‘Screenplays’))
(2016/C 335/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that devices such as the screenplays at issue in the main proceedings, whose function is both to store multimedia files and to reproduce them on a television or video monitor, come under heading 8521 of that nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case T-420/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Thun 1794 v EUIPO — Adekor (Decorative graphical symbols) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing decorative graphical symbols — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — Lack of novelty — Articles 5, 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, graphic illustration








C_2016305EN.01003201.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/32





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Thun 1794 v EUIPO — Adekor (Decorative graphical symbols)
(Case T-420/15) (1)

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing decorative graphical symbols - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Disclosure of earlier design - Lack of novelty - Articles 5, 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
(2016/C 305/44)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Thun 1794 a.s. (Nová Role, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Steidl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Adekor s.r.o. (Loket, Czech Republic) (represented by: V. Dohnalová, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 1465/2014-3) relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Thun 1794 and Adekor.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Thun 1794 a.s. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Case C-6/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public supply contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 53(2) — Award criteria — Most economically advantageous tender — Method of evaluation — Weighting rules — Obligation for the contracting authority to specify in the call for tenders the weighting of the award criteria — Scope of the obligation)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, services contract








C_2016335EN.01000901.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/9





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest
(Case C-6/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 53(2) - Award criteria - Most economically advantageous tender - Method of evaluation - Weighting rules - Obligation for the contracting authority to specify in the call for tenders the weighting of the award criteria - Scope of the obligation))
(2016/C 335/11)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TNS Dimarso NV

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment and of the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a public service contract to be awarded pursuant to the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender in the opinion of the contracting authority, that authority is not required to bring to the attention of potential tenderers, in the contract notice or the tender specifications relating to the contract at issue, the method of evaluation used by the contracting authority in order to specifically evaluate and rank the tenders. However, that method may not have the effect of altering the award criteria and their relative weighting.


(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Case T-661/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Latvia v Commission (EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Flat-rate financial correction — Conditionality — Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions — Norms — Article 5(1) and Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 6(1) and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF Guarantee Section, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture








C_2016305EN.01002902.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/29





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Latvia v Commission
(Case T-661/14) (1)

((EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat-rate financial correction - Conditionality - Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions - Norms - Article 5(1) and Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 6(1) and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009))
(2016/C 305/40)
Language of the case: Latvian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62), in so far as that decision excludes from EU financing certain expenditure of the Republic of Latvia, amounting to EUR 739 393,95, due to the fact that it is incompatible with EU rules.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as that decision excludes from EU financing certain expenditure of the Republic of Latvia, amounting to EUR 739 393,95, due to the fact that it is incompatible with EU rules;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Case C-19/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Innova Vital GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Nutrition and health claims made on foods — Article 1(2) — Scope — Foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer — Claims made in a commercial communication addressed exclusively to health professionals)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, foodstuff, health care profession, human nutrition, trade information








C_2016335EN.01001002.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Innova Vital GmbH
(Case C-19/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Article 1(2) - Scope - Foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer - Claims made in a commercial communication addressed exclusively to health professionals))
(2016/C 335/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Defendant: Innova Vital GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that nutrition or health claims made in a commercial communication on a food which is intended to be delivered as such to the final consumer, if that communication is addressed not to the final consumer, but exclusively to health professionals, falls within the scope of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
Case T-377/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial legislation, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), investment company








C_2016343EN.01004101.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/41





Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
(Case T-377/16)
(2016/C 343/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’, as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which is clearly inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;










—


in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 is unlawful.
Case C-246/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Land Hessen (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Land Hessen (Germany) — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
Date: 2016-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Hesse, State aid, control of State aid, land and buildings, sale








C_2016343EN.01001101.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/11





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Land Hessen
(Case C-246/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Land Hessen (Germany) - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part))
(2016/C 343/15)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents), Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész and A. Richter, lawyers)

Operative part of the order







1)


The appeal is dismissed.










2)


Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.