do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8460 — Peugeot/BNP Paribas/Opel Vauxhall Fincos) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, credit, economic concentration, financial services, hire purchase, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2017223EN.01000401.xml










12.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8460 — Peugeot/BNP Paribas/Opel Vauxhall Fincos)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 223/06)






1.


On 4 July 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Peugeot SA (‘PSA’, France) and BNP Paribas (‘BNPP’, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over General Motor's European financial subsidiaries and branches (the ‘Fincos’) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   PSA: a publicly listed company headquartered in France, active worldwide in the development, manufacturing and distribution of automotive vehicles under three brands - Peugeot, Citroën and DS. Through its wholly owned subsidiary Banque PSA Finance, it offers loans and leases for the purchase of PSA-branded vehicles and loans to PSA car dealers,
—   BNPP: a publicly listed company headquartered in France, active worldwide in the retail banking and services as well as in the corporate and institutional banking. Through its wholly owned subsidiary BNPP Personal Finance, it offers a full range of personal credit products at points of sale, car dealerships and directly to consumers as well as insurance and savings offers in some countries,
—   the Fincos: 23 entities in France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland which constitute the financing business of Opel and Vauxhall, and offer automotive financing solutions and related services, mainly to car dealers and customers of Opel/Vauxhall-branded vehicles.










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.8460 — Peugeot/BNP Paribas/Opel Vauxhall Fincos, 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 T-434/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — younique v EUIPO — Jafer Enterprises R&D (younique products)
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017318EN.01001402.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/14





Action brought on 12 July 2017 — younique v EUIPO — Jafer Enterprises R&D (younique products)
(Case T-434/17)
(2017/C 318/20)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: younique LLC (Utah, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jafer Enterprises R&D, SLU (Granollers, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Party applying for the trade mark in question: Applicant

Trade mark in question: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘younique products’ — Application for registration No 1 191 504

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1564/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; or, in the event that the other party in the contested decision appears as an intervener, order that the defendant and the other party in the contested decision be held jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal erred as to the level of attention of the relevant consumer and the similarity of the relevant marks.
Case T-405/16: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: citrus fruit, plant breeding, plant variety right








C_2017283EN.01005601.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/56





Order of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — The Regents of the University of California v CPVO — Nador Cott Protection and CVVP (Tang Gold)
(Case T-405/16) (1)

(2017/C 283/88)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case T-436/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, dyestuff, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, product safety








C_2017300EN.01003301.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/33





Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
(Case T-436/17)
(2017/C 300/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden), International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) (Gothenburg) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well founded;










—


annul Commission’s decision C(2017) 2914 final, dated 2 May 2017, refusing to review the Commission decision C(2016)5644 granting an authorization for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1);










—


annul Commission decision C(2016)5644;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, and










—


order any other measure deemed appropriate.





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 decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of DCC Maastricht BV within the meaning of Articles 62 and 60(7) of the REACH regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of the REACH regulation regarding the socio-economic assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Articles 60(4) and 60(5) of the REACH regulation regarding the analysis of alternatives.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the application of general principles of EU law, including the duty to state reasons and the precautionary principle, in the context of the authorisation process under the REACH regulation.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8059 — Investindustrial/Black Diamond/Polynt/Reichhold) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2017223EN.01000201.xml










12.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8059 — Investindustrial/Black Diamond/Polynt/Reichhold)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 223/03)
On 12 May 2017, 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32017M8059. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-634/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVERA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Frinsa LA CONSERVERA — Earlier EU figurative mark FRIUSA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, fishery product, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01003501.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/35





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVERA)
(Case T-634/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Frinsa LA CONSERVERA - Earlier EU figurative mark FRIUSA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 283/52)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frigoríficos Unidos, SA (Riudellots de la Selva, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2382/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Frigoríficos Unidos and Frinsa del Noroeste.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Frinsa del Noroeste, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Case C-420/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Aquitaine, bird, hunting, protected species, protection of animals








C_2017300EN.01002501.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/25





Action brought on 12 July 2017 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-420/17)
(2017/C 300/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to establish a general system of protection for the ortolan bunting in Landes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that France has never taken the necessary coherent and coordinated protective measures to establish a system of protection for the ortolan bunting, and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2009/147/EC. (1)



(1)  OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7.
Case T-371/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Antitrust — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(3) — Decision requesting information — Application for interim measures — No urgency)
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, fixing of prices, monopoly








C_2017309EN.01003301.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/33





Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
(Case T-371/17 R)
((Interim proceedings - Competition - Antitrust - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(3) - Decision requesting information - Application for interim measures - No urgency))
(2017/C 309/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Qualcomm, Inc., (San Diego, California (United States of America) and Qualcomm Europe, Inc., (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato and M. Davilla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Van Vliet, G. Conte, C. Urraca Caviedes and M. Farley, Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, seeking the suspension of operation of Commission Decision of 31 March 2017 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (predation)).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8482 — ABB/B&amp;R) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: automation, economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, robotisation








C_2017223EN.01000101.xml










12.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8482 — ABB/B&R)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 223/01)
On 3 July 2017, 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 32017M8482. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-157/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Estonia v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Estonia — Cross compliance — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Legal certainty)
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice








C_2017283EN.01003301.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/33





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Estonia v Commission
(Case T-157/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Estonia - Cross compliance - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty))
(2017/C 283/48)
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented initially by K. Kraavi-Käerdi, subsequently by N. Grünberg, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Republic of Estonia amounting to EUR 691 746,53.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017223EN.01000301.xml










12.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

11 July 2017
(2017/C 223/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1405 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,36 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4365 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88318 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6390 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1040 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5120 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,124 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,13 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2460 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5685 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,1431 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4988 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4718 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9084 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5788 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5783 




KRW


South Korean won


1 312,25 




ZAR


South African rand


15,4595 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7577 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4110 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 272,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9013 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,813 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,3300 




THB


Thai baht


38,891 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,7258 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5460 




INR


Indian rupee


73,6650 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8437 — Stadler Rail/ÖBB TS/Stadler Linz JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, vehicle on rails








C_2017223EN.01000102.xml










12.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8437 — Stadler Rail/ÖBB TS/Stadler Linz JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 223/02)
On 3 July 2017, 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 German 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 32017M8437. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-444/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)
Date: 2017-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer network, consultancy, electronic publishing, health service, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01005402.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/54





Action brought on 12 July 2017 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)
(Case T-444/17)
(2017/C 283/84)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘life coins’ — Application for registration No 12 541 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1569/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


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