do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Reorganisation measures — Decision on measures to reorganise ‘International Life, Life Insurance SA’ (Publication in accordance with Article 271 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
Date: 2017-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, Greece, insurance company, liquidation








C_2017056EN.01000601.xml










22.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/6





Reorganisation measures
Decision on measures to reorganise ‘International Life, Life Insurance SA’
(Publication in accordance with Article 271 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))
(2017/C 56/07)






Insurance undertaking


‘International Life, Life Insurance S.A.’, registered office at Kifisias 7 & Neapoleos 2, 15123 Marousi, General Commercial Register (GEMI) No 000954901000, Tax Identification Number (TIN) 094327788, Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 213800HFA633NACOEZ72




Date, nature of the decision and date of entry into force


Decision No 214/1/13.1.2017 of the Credit and Insurance Committee of the Bank of Greece concerning:
the extension of the suspension of payments and disbursements by the insurance undertaking until 28 February 2017, as imposed by Decision No 185/1/12.5.2016.
Entry into force: as of the adoption date (13.1.2017)
End of validity: 28.2.2017



Competent authorities







Bank of Greece




Address: E. Venizelou 21




10250 Athens




GREECE








Supervisory authorities







Bank of Greece




Address: E. Venizelou 21




10250 Athens




GREECE








Administrator appointed


Ioannis Peristeris, father’s name Dimitrios




Applicable law


Greek law in accordance with Article 229 of Law No 4364/2016
Case C-93/17: Action brought on 22 February 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2017-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Attica, State aid, control of State aid, financial aid, interest, investment aid, periodic penalty payment, reimbursement of aid, sanction (EU), shipbuilding








C_2017129EN.01001001.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/10





Action brought on 22 February 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-93/17)
(2017/C 129/12)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to take measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 28 June 2012 in Case C-485/10 Commission v Greece, EU:C:2012:395, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that judgment and Article 260(1) TFEU;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment in the sum of EUR 34 974 for each day of delay in complying with the Court’s judgment of 28 June 2012 in Case C-485/10, in respect of the period from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the judgment of 28 June 2012 has been complied with;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum whose amount is derived from multiplying a daily sum of EUR 3 828 by the number of days that will have elapsed from the day of delivery of the judgment of 28 June 2012 until the day on which the infringement has ended or, if there has not been compliance, until the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

On 2 July 2008, the European Commission issued Decision 2009/610/EC on the measures C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards. By that decision, the Commission found certain aid in favour of Hellenic Shipyards to be incompatible with the internal market and ordered its recovery, including interest calculated up to the point in time at which the aid was fully recovered.
On 8 October 2010, the Commission brought an action before the Court for infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU (Case C-485/10). The Court held on 28 June 2012 that, by failing to take, within the period laid down, all the measures necessary in order to implement the Commission decision and by failing to provide the information listed in Article 19 of that decision to the Commission within the period laid down, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 19 of that decision.
Since the Hellenic Republic has not taken measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 28 June 2012, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under that judgment and Article 260(1) TFEU.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8244 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/Neptūno Vandenys) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2017056EN.01000201.xml










22.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8244 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/Neptūno Vandenys)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 56/03)
On 21 December 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 32016M8244. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-122/17: Action brought on 22 February 2017 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)
Date: 2017-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017121EN.01004701.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/47





Action brought on 22 February 2017 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)
(Case T-122/17)
(2017/C 121/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Devin AD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEVIN’ — EU trade mark No 9 408 865

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 in Case R 579/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the Cancellation Division’s decision dated 29 January 2016 in the case No 9 559;










—


entirely or at least partially reject the Cancellation Applicant’s application for invalidity of the EU trade mark ‘DEVIN’ No 9408865 for all the designated goods in class 32;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


To the extent that the Board of Appeal has not infringed Article 7(1)(c), infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.