do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8688 — Northrop Grumman/Orbital ATK) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: data protection, defence policy, economic concentration, information system, logistics, merger control, military equipment








C_2018027EN.01002301.xml










25.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/23





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8688 — Northrop Grumman/Orbital ATK)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 27/11)






1.


On 18 January 2018 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:






—


Northrop Grumman Corporation (‘Northrop Grumman’, United States of Amercia),










—


Orbital ATK, Inc (‘Orbital ATK’, United States of Amercia).




Northrop Grumman acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Orbital ATK.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Northrop Grumman: development, manufacture and sale of security systems globally, including autonomous systems, spacecraft systems, command, control and communications systems and computers, ISR (intelligence surveilance and reconnaissance) systems and related serices and logistics.
—   for Orbital ATK: development, manufacture and sale of aerospace and defense systems globally, including launch vehicles, propulsion systems, satellites and components, tactical misssiles, defense electronics, precision weapons, armament systems and ammunition.










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.8688 — Northrop Grumman/Orbital ATK
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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018027EN.01000501.xml










25.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 January 2018
(2018/C 27/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2352 




JPY


Japanese yen


135,13 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4451 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87183 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,8323 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1735 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6275 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,374 




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1563 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6648 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6263 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5310 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5229 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6556 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6677 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6181 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,33 




ZAR


South African rand


14,7803 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8719 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4325 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 450,39 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8289 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,790 




RUB


Russian rouble


69,5725 




THB


Thai baht


39,032 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9437 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,9045 




INR


Indian rupee


78,6730 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Call for applications 2018 — Third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, disease prevention, invitation to tender, public health








C_2018027EN.01002001.xml










25.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/20





Call for applications 2018
Third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 27/07)
A call for applications ‘Health — 2018’ is launched today within the framework of the third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (1)

This call for applications consists of:






—


a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of project grants.




Deadline for online submissions of the proposals is 26 April 2018.
All the information, including the Commission Decision of 13 December 2017 on the adoption of the work programme for 2018 for implementation of the third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020), and on the selection, award and other criteria for financial contributions to the actions of this programme, are available on the website of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea) at the following address:
http://ec.europa.eu/chafea/


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the establishment of a third Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (OJ L 86, 21.3.2014, p. 1).
Case T-91/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Italy v Commission (ESF — Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Calculation by extrapolation — Proportionality — Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Social Fund, Sicily, financial aid, operational programme, principle of proportionality, terms for aid








C_2018094EN.01001801.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/18





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-91/16) (1)

((ESF - Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Calculation by extrapolation - Proportionality - Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))
(2018/C 094/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 9413 of 17 December 2015 concerning the reduction of the European Social Fund (ESF) [contribution] for the operational programme for the Region of Sicily, which forms part of the Community support framework for structural interventions in the Italian regions covered by objective No 1 (CCI 1999IT 161PO011).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
Case T-367/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE — Earlier EU trade mark HOLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2018094EN.01002001.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/20





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO
(Case T-367/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE - Earlier EU trade mark HOLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 094/25)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gerd Brunner (Moosthenning, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz and D. Oerter, lawyers)

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: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between CBM and Mr Brunner.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gerd Brunner to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8672 — easyJet/Certain Air Berlin assets) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, economic concentration, merger control, parking area








C_2018027EN.01000101.xml










25.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8672 — easyJet/Certain Air Berlin assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 27/01)
On 12 December 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 32017M8672. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-314/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 January 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2006/126/EC — Driving licences — Definitions of categories C1, C and D1)
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, European standard, motor vehicle, technical standard, transport regulations








C_2018104EN.01000501.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/5





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 January 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-314/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Driving licences - Definitions of categories C1, C and D1))
(2018/C 104/05)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


By failing to comply with the obligation to ensure that the definition of categories C1 and C covers only motor vehicles other than those in category D1 or D, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences;










2.


By restricting the definition of category D1 to motor vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(h) of that directive;










3.


The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
Case C-46/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2018 — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, agricultural levy, dairy industry, infringement of EU law, milk product, national law








C_2018142EN.01002801.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/28





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2018 — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto
(Case C-46/18)
(2018/C 142/38)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl, S.s. Franco and Maurizio Artuso, Sebastiano Bolzon, Claudio Matteazzi, Roberto Tellatin

Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto

Questions referred







1.


In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the consequence of the conflict of a legislative provision of a Member State with the third paragraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) is that producers are not obliged to pay the additional levy if the conditions laid down by that Regulation are met?










2.


In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law and, in particular, the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as meaning that the expectations of persons who have performed an obligation laid down by a Member State and have benefited from the effects associated with performance of that obligation may not be protected, if that obligation has proved to be in conflict with EU law?










3.


In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, do Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (2) of 9 July 2001 and the EU concept of ‘priority category’ preclude a provision of a Member State, such as Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157/2004, adopted by the Republic of Italy, which lays down varying methods for refunding an additional levy that has been over-charged, drawing a distinction, in terms of timetables and methods of repayment, between producers that have relied upon due compliance with a national provision that has proved to be in conflict with EU law and producers who have not complied with such a provision?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).
Case T-866/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law, vehicle rental








C_2018094EN.01002301.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/23





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)
(Case T-866/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 094/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: SilverTours GmbH (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2016 (Case R 206/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign billiger-mietwagen.de as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders SilverTours GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Case T-818/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA — Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market — Legally binding act — Limitation period — Economic nature of the ILS — Proportion of economic use of the installations — Incorrect numerical data — Request for adjustment — Determination of the updated values — Obligation to state reasons — Distortions of competition — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, Walloon region (Belgium), airport, control of State aid, investment aid, limitation of legal proceedings, low cost airline, reimbursement of aid








C_2018094EN.01001601.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/16





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission
(Case T-818/14) (1)

((State aid - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA - Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market - Legally binding act - Limitation period - Economic nature of the ILS - Proportion of economic use of the installations - Incorrect numerical data - Request for adjustment - Determination of the updated values - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition - Legitimate expectations))
(2018/C 094/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: P. Frühling, S. Golinvaux, H. Tacheny and J. Delarue, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Brussels Airport Company SA (represented by: T. Janssens, F. Hoseinian and T. Oeyen, lawyers) and Brussels Airlines SA/NV (represented initially by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, D. Vallindas and D. Dauchez, and subsequently by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Articles 3 to 6 of Commission Decision C(2014) 6849 final of 1 October 2014 concerning measures SA. 14093 (C76/2002) implemented by Belgium in favour of BSCA and Ryanair.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA);










3.


Orders the Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer), Brussels Airport Company SA and Brussels Airlines SA/NV to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8394 — Essilor/Luxottica) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, optical industry, research and development








C_2018027EN.01000201.xml










25.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/2





Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8394 — Essilor/Luxottica)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 27/03)
On 26 September 2017, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 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.8394 — Essilor/Luxottica, 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-765/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018094EN.01002201.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/22





Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)
(Case T-765/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 094/28)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL (Puerto del Rosario, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and J. García Murillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL.






(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.