do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8508 — Engie/CDC/SolaireCorsica 1-2-3) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, gas industry, investment company, merger control, power plant, solar energy








C_2017232EN.01000101.xml










18.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8508 — Engie/CDC/SolaireCorsica 1-2-3)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 232/01)
On 4 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 French 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 32017M8508. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-450/17: Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, confidentiality, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of proportionality, sexual mutilation, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2017357EN.01001601.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/16





Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE
(Case T-450/17)
(2017/C 357/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl (Milano, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and the subsequent decisions which assessed the bid of another tenderer as successful and which awarded the contract to that tenderer;










—


order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant with interest of 8 % or, in the alternative, compensation with interest of 8 %;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of transparency, the principle to act with a certain care and the duty to respect confidentiality, and further alleging manifest error of appraisal.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the evaluation decisions and infringement of the principle of proportionality in the assessment of the applicant’s tender.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8487 — Lone Star/Nani Holdings/Novo Banco) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2017232EN.01000202.xml










18.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8487 — Lone Star/Nani Holdings/Novo Banco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 232/04)
On 7 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 32017M8487. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8468 — Norgesgruppen/Axfood/Eurocash) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, distributor, economic concentration, food industry, merger control, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2017232EN.01001801.xml










18.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8468 — Norgesgruppen/Axfood/Eurocash)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 232/15)






1.


On 10 July 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Norgesgruppen ASA (‘Norgesgruppen’, Norway) and Axfood AB (‘Axfood’, Sweden) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Eurocash Food AB (‘Eurocash’, Sweden) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Norgesgruppen: food procurement, wholesale and retail distribution in Norway,
—   for Axfood: food procurement, wholesale and retail distribution in Sweden,
—   for Eurocash: retail distribution in eight supermarkets located in Sweden at a short distance from the Norwegian border primarily aimed at Norwegian consumers crossing the border to buy cheaper daily consumer goods.










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.8468 — Norgesgruppen/Axfood/Eurocash, 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-566/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of workers — Principle of non-discrimination — Election of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of a company — National legislation restricting the right to vote and to stand as a candidate to employees of establishments located in the national territory)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: co-determination, equal treatment, free movement of workers, parent company, right to stand for election, right to vote, staff, subsidiary, workers' representation








C_2017300EN.01000301.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG
(Case C-566/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Principle of non-discrimination - Election of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of a company - National legislation restricting the right to vote and to stand as a candidate to employees of establishments located in the national territory))
(2017/C 300/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konrad Erzberger

Defendant: TUI AG

intervening parties: Vereinigung Cockpit e.V., Betriebsrat der Tui AG/Tui Group Services GmbH, Frank Jakobi, Andreas Barczewski, Peter Bremme, Dierk Hirschel, Michael Pönipp, Wilfried H. Rau, Carola Schwirn, Anette Stempel, Ortwin Strubelt, Marcell Witt, Wolfgang Flintermann, Stefan Weinhofer, ver.di -Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the workers employed in the establishments of a group located in the territory of that Member State are deprived of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of the parent company of that group, which is established in that Member State, and as the case may be, of the right to act or to continue to act as representative on that board, where those workers leave their employment in such an establishment and are employed by a subsidiary belonging to the same group established in another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case T-449/17: Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, leather, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017300EN.01003502.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/35





Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)
(Case T-449/17)
(2017/C 300/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SEVENFRIDAY’ — Application for registration No 13 500 533

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 in Case R 2292/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar that it rejected the appeal lodged by Sevenfriday AB against the decision B252649 of 10 October 2016 and consequently allow the application No 16500533 to proceed to registration as EU trade mark;










—


subordinately, annul the contested decision and revoke at least insofar goods in class 9 are concerned.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-213/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 — European Commission v Patrick Breyer, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Article 15(3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Scope — Application for access to written submissions filed by the Republic of Austria in the case in which judgment was given on 29 July 2010, Commission v Austria (C-189/09, not published, EU:C:2010:455) — Documents in the possession of the European Commission — Protection of court proceedings)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, access to EU information, data protection, disclosure of information, infringement procedure (EU), judicial proceedings








C_2017300EN.01000201.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 — European Commission v Patrick Breyer, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
(Case C-213/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Article 15(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Scope - Application for access to written submissions filed by the Republic of Austria in the case in which judgment was given on 29 July 2010, Commission v Austria (C-189/09, not published, EU:C:2010:455) - Documents in the possession of the European Commission - Protection of court proceedings))
(2017/C 300/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Patrick Breyer (represented by: M. Starostik, Rechtsanwalt), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Breyer;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Case T-758/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — EDF Toruń v ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Calculation criteria of the amount of the administrative charge)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: VAT, administrative formalities, equal treatment, medium-sized business, payment, principle of proportionality, small business, tax exemption








C_2017283EN.01003602.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/36





Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — EDF Toruń v ECHA
(Case T-758/15) (1)

((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Calculation criteria of the amount of the administrative charge))
(2017/C 283/54)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: EDF Toruń SA (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: K. Sienkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: J.-P. Trnka, C. Schultheiss and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, seeking first, the annulment of Decision SME(2015) 4950 of the ECHA of 3 November 2015 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it and, second, the annulment of invoice No 10054011 issued by the ECHA following the adoption of Decision SME(2015) 4950.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EDF Toruń S.A. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Case T-243/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Freddo v EUIPO — Freddo Freddo (Freggo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark ‘freggo’ — Earlier EU figurative trade mark ‘TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, dairy ice cream, foodstuff, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01004202.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/42





Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Freddo v EUIPO — Freddo Freddo (Freggo)
(Case T-243/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark ‘freggo’ - Earlier EU figurative trade mark ‘TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 283/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Freddo SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Freddo Freddo, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.F. Gallego Jiménez and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 (Case R 919/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Freddo Freddo SL and Freddo SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Freddo SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8341 — Lone Star Fund/Xella International) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2017232EN.01000201.xml










18.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8341 — Lone Star Fund/Xella International)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 232/03)
On 29 March 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 32017M8341. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8532 — Blackstone Group/Sponda) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2017232EN.01000102.xml










18.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8532 — Blackstone Group/Sponda)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 232/02)
On 10 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 32017M8532. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-748/15: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, civil engineering, engineering structure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017300EN.01003802.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/38





Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)
(Case T-748/15) (1)

(2017/C 300/48)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
Notice for the attention of a person and an entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, trade restriction








C_2017232EN.01000301.xml










18.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/3





Notice for the attention of a person and an entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
(2017/C 232/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Saji’ Darwish (no. 236) and to Centre d’études et de recherches syrien (CERS) (no. 21), person and entity appearing in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned person and entity with amended statements of reasons. That person and entity are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons before 25 July 2017, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu






(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.
Case T-13/16: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)
Date: 2017-07-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vocational training








C_2017309EN.01004101.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/41





Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)
(Case T-13/16) (1)

(2017/C 309/55)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.