do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8617 — Allianz/LV general insurance businesses) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, provision of services








C_2017403EN.01000101.xml










28.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8617 — Allianz/LV general insurance businesses)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 403/01)
On 18 October 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 32017M8617. 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.8699 — CEPSA/CEPSA Gas Comercializadora) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fuel, gas pipeline, gas supply, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, retail trade, supplier, wholesale trade








C_2017403EN.01001001.xml










28.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8699 — CEPSA/CEPSA Gas Comercializadora)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 403/08)






1.


On 21 November 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:






—


Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A.U. (“CEPSA”, Spain), controlled by Mubadala Investment Company;










—


CEPSA Gas Comercializadora, S.A. (“CEPSA Gas”, Spain), currently jointly controlled by Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A.U. and Total S.A.




CEPSA acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control over the whole of CEPSA Gas.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CEPSA is active in (i) oil production and exploration activities, (ii) oil refining, (iii) the supply of motor, aviation and vessel fuels, (iv) the production of petrochemicals, (v) other oil-derivative products, and (vi) the retail supply of gas to customers.










—


CEPSA Gas is active in the retail supply of natural gas to both large industrial and small and medium enterprise (SME) customers in Spain and Portugal and, to a lesser extent, the wholesale supply of natural gas, including trading, in Spain.














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.8699 — CEPSA/CEPSA Gas Comercializadora
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 T-787/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair)
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cosmetic product, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01004501.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/45





Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair)
(Case T-787/17)
(2018/C 032/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH (Pfedelbach, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GlamHair’ — Application No 15 211 956

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 82/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-239/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark perlage — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mineral water, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01003401.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/34





Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage)
(Case T-239/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark perlage - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 022/46)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Polskie Zdroje sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 (Case R 1129/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of word sign perlage as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Polskie Zdroje sp. z o.o. sp.k. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Case T-776/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018063EN.01001302.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/13





Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)
(Case T-776/17)
(2018/C 063/18)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Medora Therapeutics LTD (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Biohealth Italia Srl (Rivoli, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITHOREN’ — EU trade mark No 12 744 901

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 178/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-795/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Moreira v EUIPO — Da Silva Santos Júnior (NEYMAR)
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018063EN.01001401.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/14





Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Moreira v EUIPO — Da Silva Santos Júnior (NEYMAR)
(Case T-795/17)
(2018/C 063/19)
Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Carlos Moreira (Guimarães, Portugal) (represented by: T. Soares Faria, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Neymar Da Silva Santos Júnior (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘NEYMAR’ — European Union trade mark No 11 432 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 Case R 80/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision and declare valid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, the trade mark ‘NEYMAR’ No 00000 held by Carlos Morera, for all the goods or services for which the mark has been registered;










—


Order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-514/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues de Andrade, Fausto da Silva Rodrigues de Andrade v José Manuel Proença Salvador, Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais, SA, Jorge Oliveira Pinto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Accident on a farm — Accident involving an agricultural tractor that was stationary but with the engine running in order to drive a spray pump for applying herbicide)
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural holding, compulsory insurance, motor vehicle insurance, plant health treatment, third-party insurance, tractor, transport accident








C_2018032EN.01000302.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues de Andrade, Fausto da Silva Rodrigues de Andrade v José Manuel Proença Salvador, Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais, SA, Jorge Oliveira Pinto
(Case C-514/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Accident on a farm - Accident involving an agricultural tractor that was stationary but with the engine running in order to drive a spray pump for applying herbicide))
(2018/C 032/04)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues de Andrade, Fausto da Silva Rodrigues de Andrade

Defendants: José Manuel Proença Salvador, Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais, SA, Jorge Oliveira Pinto

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, referred to in that provision, does not cover a situation in which an agricultural tractor has been involved in an accident when its principal function, at the time of that accident, was not to serve as a means of transport but to generate, as a machine for carrying out work, the motive power necessary to drive the pump of a herbicide sprayer.


(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
Annual Report 2016
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: European Ombudsman
Subjects: European Ombudsman, activity report, exchange of information








C_2017403EN.01000501.xml










28.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/5





Annual Report 2016
(2017/C 403/05)
On 17 May 2017, the European Ombudsman presented her Annual Report for the year 2016 to the President of the European Parliament.
The Annual Report is available on the European Ombudsman’s website in all 24 official languages at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/activities/annualreports.faces
Case C-669/17 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2017 by Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-247/16: Trasta Komercbanka AS and Others v European Central Bank
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, banking supervision, liquidation, right of action, right to justice, shareholder, trade licence








C_2018042EN.01000801.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/8





Appeal brought on 28 November 2017 by Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-247/16: Trasta Komercbanka AS and Others v European Central Bank
(Case C-669/17 P)
(2018/C 042/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA (represented by: O.H. Behrends, L. Feddern, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside no. 1 of the order, i.e. the decision by the General Court that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment of Trasta Komercbanka AS (TKB);










—


declare that the action for annulment of TKB is not devoid of purpose;










—


declare that the action for annulment is admissible;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment, and










—


order the European Central Bank (ECB) to pay the appellants’ costs and the costs of the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in assuming that TKB’s remedy is entrusted to the liquidator. The appellants claim that this assumption is irreconcilable with Art. 263 TFEU and the guarantee of an effective remedy as well as a number of related principles.
By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in assuming that the shareholders’ action is a substitute for the shareholders’ ability to defend TKB’s license through an action by TKB itself.
By the third ground of appeal, the appellants claim a number of further substantive errors including a failure to apply the nemo auditur-principle because of the ECB’s interference with TKB’s remedy.
By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court failed to take into account the requirements (including form requirements) for a valid revocation of the power of attorney originally issued by TKB.
By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erroneously applied Art. 51(1) rather than Art. 131 of the Rules of Procedure as well as a number of further procedural errors.
Case T-254/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission (State aid — Iron and steel industry — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of several undertakings in the iron and steel industry — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test)
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, investment company, iron and steel industry, loan, private investment, reimbursement of aid








C_2018022EN.01003501.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/35





Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission
(Case T-254/16) (1)

((State aid - Iron and steel industry - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of several undertakings in the iron and steel industry - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))
(2018/C 022/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) SA (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. van den Broucke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, É. Gippini Fournier and K. Herrmann, and, subsequently, É. Gippini Fournier, V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) granted by Belgium to Duferco (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) SA to bear its own costs;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2017403EN.01000201.xml










28.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

27 November 2017
(2017/C 403/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1952 




JPY


Japanese yen


132,69 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4424 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89375 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,9260 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1718 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7533 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,431 




HUF


Hungarian forint


311,24 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2087 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6418 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6756 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5656 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5156 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,3249 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7305 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6063 




KRW


South Korean won


1 299,46 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4083 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8905 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5588 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 137,59 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9093 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,056 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,4793 




THB


Thai baht


38,987 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8564 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,1272 




INR


Indian rupee


77,0930 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-31/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (Juwel) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Juwel — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01003302.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/33





Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (Juwel)
(Case T-31/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Juwel - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 022/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2015 (Case R 2571/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of word mark Juwel as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.