do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8573 — CVC Group/Arzignanese/Pasubio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-08-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, leather industry, merger control








C_2017252EN.01001301.xml










3.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8573 — CVC Group/Arzignanese/Pasubio)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 252/09)






1.


On 26 July 2017, 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) indirectly acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Arzignanese srl (‘Arzignanese’, Italy) and Pasubio SpA (‘Pasubio’, Italy) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CVC: The CVC Group provides advice to and manages investment funds and platforms,
—   for Arzignanese and Pasubio (‘Pasubio Group’): The Pasubio Group is active in the tanning of leather and the production of finished leather products for use in various sectors, including automotive interiors, furniture and luxury 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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the 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.8573 — CVC Group/Arzignanese/Pasubio, 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.
Case C-466/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2017 — Chiara Motter v Provincia autonoma di Trento
Date: 2017-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, full-time employment, recruitment, seniority, temporary employment








C_2017347EN.01001402.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2017 — Chiara Motter v Provincia autonoma di Trento
(Case C-466/17)
(2017/C 347/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Chiara Motter

Defendant: Provincia autonoma di Trento

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of applying the principle of non-discrimination pursuant to clause 4 of the framework agreement, is the requirement to pass an initial objective test of professional qualifications in a public selection procedure a factor that can be ascribed to the training requirements that the national court must take into account in order to determine whether there is comparability between the situation of a permanent worker and that of a fixed-term worker and in order to decide whether this constitutes an objective ground capable of justifying a difference in treatment between permanent workers and fixed-term workers?










2.


Does the principle of non-discrimination under clause 4 of the framework agreement preclude a national provision (such as that contained in Article 485(1) of Legislative Decree No 297 of 16 April 1994) which lays down that, in order to determine seniority at the time of admittance to the permanent staff under a permanent employment contract, the first four years of service performed on a fixed-term basis are counted in full but subsequent periods are reduced by one-third for legal purposes and by two-thirds for salary purposes if one considers the absence, for the purposes of fixed-term employment, of a requirement to pass an initial objective test of professional qualifications in a public selection procedure?










3.


Does the principle of non-discrimination under clause 4 of the framework agreement preclude a national provision (such as that contained in Article 485(1) of Legislative Decree No 297 of 16 April 1994) which lays down that, in order to determine seniority at the time of admittance to the permanent staff under a permanent employment contract, the first four years of service performed on a fixed-term basis are counted in full but subsequent periods are reduced by one-third for legal purposes and by two-thirds for salary purposes, if one considers the objective of preventing reverse discrimination against career civil servants recruited after passing a general competition?
Case T-488/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)
Date: 2017-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017309EN.01004001.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/40





Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)
(Case T-488/17)
(2017/C 309/53)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Ghost — Corporate Management SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. de Barros Araújo, advogada)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘Dry zone’ — Application for registration No 15 498 322

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2017 in Case R 0683/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present appeal and consequently annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2017 in its entirety and consequently substitute the contested decision with one which holds that Case No R 683/2017-2, EUTM No 015498322 Dry Zone was filed in good time, so that the action may be pursued accordingly.










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


First plea: infringement of Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1) and Article 72(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (JO 1995, L 303, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21);










—


second plea: failure to observe the procedural safeguards to which the appellant is entitled, by not establishing the existence of facts which are not under the control of the applicant or which amount to an incidence of force majeure, in breach of the principle of proportionality;










—


third plea: infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.