do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-852/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, international relations, judicial proceedings








C_2017053EN.01003201.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/32





Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission
(Case T-852/16)
(2017/C 053/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul decision C(2016) 6030 of the Commission of 19 September 2016 refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for conducting the proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.





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 that the Commission misapplied Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine international relations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the protection of pending court proceedings initiated in cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16 and that access to the said documents would undermine the Commission’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice. It is also argued under this plea that the Commission failed to recognize that access to the requested documents is of overriding public interest and that they should for that reason be disclosed.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(3), first and second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the decision-making process and/or by failing to recognize the existence of an overriding public interest, particularly given that the decision-making process in question has been finalised.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, that the Commission misapplied Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not granting at least partial access to the requested documents which it withheld in their entirety.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Case T-2/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — K&K Group v EUIPO — Pret A Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Pret A Diner — Earlier EU figurative mark PRET A MANGER — Earlier national word mark PRET — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, catering industry, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01003201.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/32





Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — K&K Group v EUIPO — Pret A Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner)
(Case T-2/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Pret A Diner - Earlier EU figurative mark PRET A MANGER - Earlier national word mark PRET - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 022/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: K&K Group AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2015 (Case R 2825/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pret A Manger (Europe) and K&K Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders K&K Group AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
Case T-842/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical energy, energy production, registered trade mark, renewable energy, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01003901.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/39





Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)
(Case T-842/16)
(2017/C 038/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘REPOWER’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 020 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-65/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court — Error in law — Error in fact — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality)
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017022EN.01002101.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/21





Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council
(Case T-65/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court - Error in law - Error in fact - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality))
(2017/C 022/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux, M. Bishop and B. Driessen, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and D. Gauci, agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, in the alternative, annulment of Decision 2013/661 and of Implementing Regulation No 1154/2013 in so far as those acts concern the applicant as from 20 January 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bank Refah Kargaran to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8087 — Smiths Group/Morpho Detection) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, security services








C_2016445EN.01000801.xml










30.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8087 — Smiths Group/Morpho Detection)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 445/05)






1.


On 23 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Smiths Group plc (‘Smiths’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Morpho Detection, LLC and Morpho Detection International, LLC (together ‘Morpho Detection’, United States) by way of purchase of shares and assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Smiths: global technology company with five divisions: John Crane, Smiths Medical, Smiths Detection, Smiths Interconnect and Flex-Tek. Smiths Detection offers security solutions for customers worldwide. It develops and manufactures equipment that detects and identifies explosives, weapons, chemical agents, biohazards, nuclear and radioactive material, narcotics and contraband. It also offers services to maintain and upgrade its installed base of equipment and related products,
—   for Morpho Detection: development and manufacturing of equipment for detecting and identifying explosive, radiological and nuclear threats, as well as narcotics and contraband. It also offers services to maintain and upgrade its installed base of equipment and related products.










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 M.8087 — Smiths Group/Morpho Detection, 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-486/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic, Orange, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — State aid — Financial measures for France Télécom — Shareholder loan offer — Public statements by representatives of the French State — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Definition of ‘aid’ — Concept of ‘economic advantage’ — Prudent private investor criterion — Obligation of the General Court to state reasons — Limits of judicial review — Distortion of the decision at issue)
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, judicial review, telecommunications industry








C_2017030EN.01001202.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/12





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic, Orange, Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-486/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Financial measures for France Télécom - Shareholder loan offer - Public statements by representatives of the French State - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Definition of ‘aid’ - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Prudent private investor criterion - Obligation of the General Court to state reasons - Limits of judicial review - Distortion of the decision at issue))
(2017/C 030/12)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, B. Stromsky, D. Grespan and T. Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and by J. Bousin, acting as Agents), Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, avocats), Federal Republic of Germany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (M.8272 — CVC/Cinven/Newday) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: credit institution, economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2016445EN.01000901.xml










30.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/9





Prior notification of a concentration
(M.8272 — CVC/Cinven/Newday)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 445/06)






1.


On 22 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’, Luxembourg) and Cinven Capital Management (VI) General Partner Limited (‘Cinven (VI) GP’, Guernsey) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of NewDay Group Holdings Sàrl (‘NewDay’, Luxembourg) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are as follows:






—


CVC is a global private equity investment fund holding interests in various industries including chemicals, utilities, manufacturing, retailing and distribution,










—


Cinven (VI) GP is a global private equity investment fund holding interests in engineering, consumer and retail, healthcare and telecommunications businesses,










—


NewDay is a UK consumer finance provider offering credit cards, specifically, near-prime consumer credit cards and co-brand consumer credit cards, and store cards.














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 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 M.8272 — CVC/Cinven/Newday 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.