do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-63/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, services contract, subcontracting, supplies contract, tendering, works contract








C_2018166EN.01001901.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA
(Case C-63/18)
(2018/C 166/24)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vitali SpA

Defendant: Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 71 of Directive 2014/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) which does not contemplate quantitative limitations on subcontracting, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national legislation in matters relating to public procurement, such as the Italian rule set out in the third sentence of Article 105(2) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016, pursuant to which subcontracting cannot exceed 30 % of the total amount of the contract for works, services or supplies?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Case T-105/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel — Earlier international figurative mark Marlboro — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2018104EN.01003102.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/31





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)
(Case T-105/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel - Earlier international figurative mark Marlboro - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
(2018/C 104/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and M. Simandlova, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Explosal Ltd (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Philip Morris and Explosal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO and Explosal Ltd to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Philip Morris Brands Sàrl.






(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Case C-69/18: Action brought on 1 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audit, auditing, consolidated account, financial control, infringement procedure (EU), management audit, national implementing measure, sanction (EU)








C_2018152EN.01001301.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/13





Action brought on 1 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-69/18)
(2018/C 152/14)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvelbæk, G. von Rintelen and M. Žebre)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 196), or in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;










—


order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty payment, under Article 260(3) TFEU, in the sum of EUR 7 986,60 per day, as from the day of delivery of the Court’s judgment in the present case;










—


order Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 2 of Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, the Republic of Slovenia should have adopted and communicated the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 17 June 2016. Since the Republic of Slovenia did not notify the Commission, before the expiry of that deadline, that it has transposed all the provisions of that directive, the Commission decided to refer the case to the Court.
By its action, the Commission asks the Court to order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty of EUR 7 986,60 per day. In calculating that amount, the Commission took into consideration the seriousness and the duration of the infringement of EU law, as well as the deterrent effect in relation to the ability of the Member State concerned, namely the Republic of Slovenia, to pay.
The deadline for transposition of the directive expired on 17 June 2013.
Case T-423/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission (State aid — Aid implemented by Greece — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test — Amount of aid to be recovered — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, capital increase, control of State aid, credit guarantee, mining extraction, reimbursement of aid








C_2018104EN.01002402.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/24





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission
(Case T-423/14) (1)

((State aid - Aid implemented by Greece - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Amount of aid to be recovered - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees))
(2018/C 104/31)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Dryllerakis, I. Soufleros, E. Triantafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, E. Rantos and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on the State aid SA.34572 (20113/C) (ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S.A. (OJ 2014 L 254, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Case T-412/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Sale of certain assets operated by an undertaking or belonging to that undertaking in the context of a privatisation programme — No economic continuity — Action by the beneficiary of the aid — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, admissibility, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, mining extraction, privatisation, sale








C_2018104EN.01002401.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/24





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission
(Case T-412/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Sale of certain assets operated by an undertaking or belonging to that undertaking in the context of a privatisation programme - No economic continuity - Action by the beneficiary of the aid - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 104/30)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Dryllerakis, N. Korogiannakis, I. Soufleros, E. Triantafyllou, G. Psaroudakis and E. Rantos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 1805 of 27 March 2014 on the State aid SA.37954 (2013/N) — Greece — Sale of certain assets of Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S.A. (OJ 2014 C 156, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8734 — Mitsui/GSC/CaetanoBus) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bus, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, retail trade








C_2018037EN.01000202.xml










1.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/2







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8734 — Mitsui/GSC/CaetanoBus)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 37/03)

On 19 January 2018, 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 32018M8734. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-506/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Greece — Flat-rate financial corrections — Area-related aid scheme — Concept of permanent pasture — Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % — Communication under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Cross-compliance — Monitoring of statutory management requirements — Monitoring of good agricultural and environmental conditions — Duty to state reasons — Deduction of a correction annulled by a judgment of the General Court)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, grassland, single payment scheme








C_2018104EN.01002702.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/27





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-506/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Flat-rate financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Communication under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Cross-compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Monitoring of good agricultural and environmental conditions - Duty to state reasons - Deduction of a correction annulled by a judgment of the General Court))
(2018/C 104/35)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


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

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8753 — HASCO/Magna/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2018037EN.01002801.xml










1.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/28







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8753 — HASCO/Magna/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 37/09)


1.   
On 24 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:






—


Huayu Automotive Systems Co., Ltd (‘HASCO’, China) controlled by Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation Group (‘SAIC’, China),










—


Magna International Inc. (‘Magna’, Canada),










—


HASCO Magna Electric Drive System Co., Ltd, (‘E-Drive Ltd’, China).




HASCO and Magna acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of E-Drive Ltd.
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:






—


HASCO is active in the production and sale of automotive components for a variety of car manufacturers,










—


Magna is active globally in the manufacture and supply of automotive components, including e-drive power train systems,










—


E-Drive Ltd aims to assemble e-motors, gearboxes, inverters and other related parts into an e-drive powertrain system and sell it to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).






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.8753 — HASCO/Magna/JV
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-518/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — France v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Metropolitan France’s rural development programme — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — Flat-rate financial correction — Expenditure incurred by France — On-the-spot controls — Loading criterion — Counting of animals — Increase in the flat-rate correction due to the recurrence of failure — Procedural safeguards)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural census, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, less-favoured region, rural development








C_2018104EN.01002801.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/28





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — France v Commission
(Case T-518/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Metropolitan France’s rural development programme - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - Flat-rate financial correction - Expenditure incurred by France - On-the-spot controls - Loading criterion - Counting of animals - Increase in the flat-rate correction due to the recurrence of failure - Procedural safeguards))
(2018/C 104/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and A. Daly, then D. Colas, R. Coesme and A. Daly, finally D. Colas, R. Coesme, S. Horrenberger and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Lewis and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially M. Sampol Pucurull, then V. Ester Casas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applies a flat-rate correction increased by 10 % on the ground that the failure alleged of the French authorities in the field of the counting of animals was recurrent and had not been subject to improvements carried out by those authorities;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs;










4.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
Case T-457/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union word mark Le Coq de France — Earlier national figurative mark le coq — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 2017/1001])
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018104EN.01003401.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/34





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)
(Case T-457/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union word mark Le Coq de France - Earlier national figurative mark le coq - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 2017/1001]))
(2018/C 104/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Schwamm & Cie. mbH (Saarbrucken, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2016 (Case R 1786/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Schwamm & Cie. And Aldi Einkauf.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.