do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-630/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017374EN.01004802.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/48





Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB
(Case T-630/17)
(2017/C 374/72)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Top Cable, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










—


Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










—


Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;










—


Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
Case T-327/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guidance Section — Reduction of financial assistance — Operational programme — Legal basis — Transitional provisions — Application of financial corrections after the programming period concerned — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Ne bis in idem — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, financial aid, legal basis, operational programme, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, rural development








C_2017369EN.01000801.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/8





Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-327/15) (1)

((EAGGF - Guidance Section - Reduction of financial assistance - Operational programme - Legal basis - Transitional provisions - Application of financial corrections after the programming period concerned - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Ne bis in idem - Proportionality))
(2017/C 369/09)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 1936 final of 25 March 2015 on applying financial correction on the EAGGF Guidance Section of the Operational Programme CCI No 2000GR061PO021 (GREECE — Objective 1 — Rural Reconstruction).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
Case C-549/17 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2017 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-346/14 DEP: Yanukovych v Council
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal expenses, natural person








C_2018022EN.01001702.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/17





Appeal brought on 19 September 2017 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-346/14 DEP: Yanukovych v Council
(Case C-549/17 P)
(2018/C 022/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, Advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, Republic of Poland, European Commission
By order of 23 November 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-315/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Butterfly — Earlier EU word mark and national trade name Butterfly — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, clothing, electronic component, game of chance, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2017369EN.01001302.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/13





Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)
(Case T-315/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Butterfly - Earlier EU word mark and national trade name Butterfly - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 369/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Pethke and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 (Case R 221/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Tamasu Butterfly Europa and adp Gauselmann.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
Case C-552/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Motor vehicles — Rental or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of one Member State from a supplier established in another Member State — Registration tax — Payment of the full amount of tax at the time of registration — Conditions for refunding tax — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: establishment, freedom to provide services, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, interest, motor vehicle, principle of proportionality, registration tax, residence, vehicle rental








C_2017382EN.01000701.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/7





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-552/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Motor vehicles - Rental or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of one Member State from a supplier established in another Member State - Registration tax - Payment of the full amount of tax at the time of registration - Conditions for refunding tax - Proportionality))
(2017/C 382/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: L. Williams, E. Creedon and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, M. Collins SC, and S. Kingston and C. Daly, Barristers-at-Law)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by imposing the obligation to pay in advance the full amount of the vehicle registration tax applicable in the event of permanent registration, whatever the actual limited duration of the proposed use in Ireland of a vehicle imported there, and although the temporary duration of the lease or rental has been determined precisely and is known in advance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;










2.


Declares that, by failing to provide for the payment of interest when vehicle registration tax is refunded and by deducting the sum of EUR 500 by way of an administration charge from the amount of registration tax to be refunded, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;










3.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8513 — Infineon Technologies/SAIC Motor/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronics industry, energy consumption, logistics, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2017310EN.01000201.xml










19.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8513 — Infineon Technologies/SAIC Motor/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 310/02)
On 12 September 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 32017M8513. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-631/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017382EN.01005002.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/50





Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB
(Case T-631/17)
(2017/C 382/63)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hola, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

Defendants: Single Resolution Board and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










—


Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










—


Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;










—


Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8453 — Nestlé/BPW) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal welfare, confectionery, economic concentration, food supplement, marketing, merger control, milk product, non-alcoholic beverage, production, sale








C_2017310EN.01000801.xml










19.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8453 — Nestlé/BPW)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 310/06)






1.


On 11 September 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Nestlé S. A. (Nestlé) (Switzerland),










—


Beverage Partners Worldwide, S. A. (BPW) (Switzerland), a full-function Joint-venture controlled by Nestlé and The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC) (United States).




Nestlé acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of NESTEA Business in all European countries except Spain, Portugal and Andorra, currently operated by BPW.
The concentration is accomplished by way of contract of management or any other means.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Nestlé: the production, marketing and sale of milk products, ice-cream, nutrition and health science, drinks, as well as confectionery and pet care products,
—   for BPW: the distribution and commercialisation of ready-to-drink (RTD) tea beverages, and beverages bases used in their production, under the NESTEA brand.










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 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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8453 — Nestlé/BPW
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email:




COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax




+32 22964301




Postal 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-551/17 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2017 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-348/14 DEP: Yanukovych v Council
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal expenses, natural person








C_2018022EN.01001801.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/18





Appeal brought on 19 September 2017 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-348/14 DEP: Yanukovych v Council
(Case C-551/17 P)
(2018/C 022/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, Advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission
By order of 23 November 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8604 — Xella International/Ursa) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building materials, credit, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real property








C_2017310EN.01001101.xml










19.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/11





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8604 — Xella International/Ursa)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 310/08)






1.


On 11 September 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which Lone Star Fund X (US), LP and Lone Star Fund X (Bermuda), LP, through their fully owned subsidiary Xella International SA, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole Ursa Insulation SA and Ursa International GmbH, by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Lone Star: a private equity firm that invests globally in real estate, equity, credit and other financial assets,
—   for Xella International: a diversified building materials group, which includes mineral insulation boards,
—   for Ursa: an insulation materials provider.










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 the 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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8604 — Xella International/Ursa.
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8547 — Celanese/Blackstone/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, tobacco industry








C_2017310EN.01000601.xml










19.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/6





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8547 — Celanese/Blackstone/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 310/05)






1.


On 12 September 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Celanese Corporation (United States)










—


Blackstone Group LP (United States)




Celanese and Blackstone acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture by way of contribution to the JV their respective cellulose acetate flake and tow businesses.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Celanese: Celanese Corporation is a technology and specialty materials company. Celanese’s business segment relevant to this transaction concerns the manufacture and supply of flake and tow for use in cigarette filters,
—   for Blackstone: The Blackstone Group LP is a global asset manager. Blackstone recently acquired Acetow, a company active in the manufacture and supply of flake and tow for cigarette filters.










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. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8547 — Celanese/Blackstone/JV
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal 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-56/16: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council
Date: 2017-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, equality before the law, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, rights of the defence








C_2017392EN.01004002.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/40





Order of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council
(Case T-56/16) (1)

(2017/C 392/50)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.