do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8256 — NEC Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/brees Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance )
Date: 2016-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, information technology industry, merger control








C_2016456EN.01000101.xml










7.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 456/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8256 — NEC Corporation/Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation/brees Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 456/01)
On 30 November 2016, 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 32016M8256. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-633/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet
Date: 2016-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: merger, merger control, restriction on competition








C_2017046EN.01001701.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet
(Case C-633/16)
(2017/C 046/19)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsretten

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ernst & Young P/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Questions referred







1.


What criteria are to be applied in assessing whether the conduct or actions of an undertaking are covered by the prohibition in Article 7(1) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the prohibition of advance implementation), and does implementing action within the meaning of Article 7(1) presuppose that the action, wholly or in part, factually or legally, forms part of the actual change of control or merging of the continuing activities of the participating undertakings which — provided the quantitative thresholds are met — gives rise to the obligation of notification?










2.


Can the termination of a cooperation agreement, as in the present case, which is announced under circumstances corresponding to those described in the order for reference constitute an implementing action covered by the prohibition in Article 7(1) of Council Regulation No 139/2004, and what criteria are then to be applied in making a decision?










3.


Does it make any difference in answering Question 2 whether the termination has actually given rise to market effects relevant to competition law?










4.


If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, clarification is requested as to what criteria and what degree of probability should be applied in deciding in the particular case whether the termination has given rise to such market effects, including the significance of the possibility that those effects could be attributed to other causes.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
Case C-686/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Framework for an EU water policy — Recovery of the costs of services connected with water use — Calculation of the amount due from the consumer — Variable component related to actual consumption and fixed component independent of that consumption)
Date: 2016-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: housing, invoicing, measuring equipment, payment, water consumption, water supply








C_2017038EN.01000601.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/6





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić
(Case C-686/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for an EU water policy - Recovery of the costs of services connected with water use - Calculation of the amount due from the consumer - Variable component related to actual consumption and fixed component independent of that consumption))
(2017/C 038/08)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o.

Defendant: Željka Klafurić

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the price of water services invoiced to the consumer includes not only a variable component calculated according to the volume of water actually consumed by the person concerned, but also a fixed component which is not connected with that volume.


(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-869/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Wenger v. EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR)
Date: 2016-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01005001.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/50





Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Wenger v. EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR)
(Case T-869/16)
(2017/C 038/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Wenger SA (Delémont, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Ikas and A. Sulovsky, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swissgear Sàrl (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SWISSGEAR’– EU trade mark No 7 197 783

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 in Case R 2098/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR.
Case T-859/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Damm v EUIPO — Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER)
Date: 2016-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01004601.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/46





Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Damm v EUIPO — Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER)
(Case T-859/16)
(2017/C 038/60)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sociedad Anónima Damm (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG (Au-Hallertau, 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: figurative mark containing the word element ‘EISKELLER’ –EU trade mark application No 12 204 426

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 2428/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-862/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)
Date: 2016-12-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01004801.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/48





Action brought on 7 December 2016 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)
(Case T-862/16)
(2017/C 038/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: fritz-kulturgüter GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schindler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Oeiras Carnaxide, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘fritz-wasser’ — Application No 12 314 753

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2016 in Case R 1510/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety;










—


allow application No 012 314 753 to proceeding to registration;










—


order the opponent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and order the defendant to pay the remainder of the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.