do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-102/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark SANTORO — Earlier EU word mark SANGRE DE TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2018104EN.01003902.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/39





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO)
(Case T-102/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark SANTORO - Earlier EU word mark SANGRE DE TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 104/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano (San Marzano di San Giuseppe, Italy) (represented initially by F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, and subsequently by I. Carli, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 2018/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-263/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Schenker Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — International air freight forwarding services — Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, air freight rate, air transport, cartel, international transport, price agreement








C_2018112EN.01000302.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/3





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Schenker Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-263/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services))
(2018/C 112/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Schenker Ltd (represented by: F. Montag and M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Hoseinian, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Schenker Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8746 — EG Group/ESSO Germany Business) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control, motor fuel, retail trade








C_2018037EN.01000201.xml










1.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/2







Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8746 — EG Group/ESSO Germany Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 37/02)

On 24 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 32018M8746. 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.8761 — ReAssure/Actaeon) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, life assurance, merger control, pension scheme, reinsurance, retail trade, wholesale selling








C_2018037EN.01003001.xml










1.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/30







Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8761 — ReAssure/Actaeon)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 37/10)


1.   
On 26 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:






—


ReAssure Limited, controlled by Swiss Re Ltd (‘Swiss Re’, Switzerland),










—


Actaeon (‘Actaeon’, UK).




Swiss Re acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Actaeon.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   Swiss Re: wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and other insurance-based forms of risk transfer for both life and non-life products including for retail customers;
—   Actaeon: provision of traditional life insurance based pensions, savings and investments products mainly to retail customers and to a limited number of corporate (group) schemes. Actaeon’s products are predominantly closed to new business and in run-off, both at an individual and a group level.


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.8761 — ReAssure/Actaeon
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-261/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — International air freight forwarding services — Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, air freight rate, air transport, cartel, international transport, price agreement








C_2018112EN.01000301.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/3





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-261/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services))
(2018/C 112/03)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and C. Klöppner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge (United Kingdom)), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai (China)) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong-Kong (China)) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Corrigendum to Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina (OJ C 34, 31.1.2018)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Argentina, anti-subsidy proceeding, biofuel, import (EU), originating product








C_2018037EN.01003101.xml










1.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/31







Corrigendum to Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 34 of 31 January 2018
)
(2018/C 37/11)

On page 37, point 3(i):

for:







‘(i)


government provision of goods or services for less than adequate remuneration, such as the provision of soybeans;’,





read:







‘(i)


government provision of goods or services for less than adequate remuneration, such as the provision of soybeans and soybean oil;’.
Case C-271/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — International air freight forwarding services — Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, air freight rate, air transport, cartel, international transport, price agreement








C_2018112EN.01000402.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/4





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-271/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services))
(2018/C 112/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis and A. Gamble, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Meessen and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG and Panalpina China Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Case T-477/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v ECHA (Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Provisions of information technology (IT) services for the applications of the ECHA — Rejection of an offer by a tenderer — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, indemnification, information system, information technology industry, services contract, tendering








C_2018104EN.01002701.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/27





Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v ECHA
(Case T-477/15) (1)

((Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Provisions of information technology (IT) services for the applications of the ECHA - Rejection of an offer by a tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest errors of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
(2018/C 104/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by: E. Maurage, W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, and subsequently by W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decisions notified to the applicants by letter of 25 June 2015, by which the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) rejected their tender for the award of contract No ECHA/2014/86 for the provision of IT services for the IT applications of ECHA and awarded that contract to another bidder and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation for the damage which the applicants allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).






(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018037EN.01000301.xml










1.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/3







Euro exchange rates (1)


            31 January 2018
         
(2018/C 37/04)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2457 




JPY


Japanese yen


135,60 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4419 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87910 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7645 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1631 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5620 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,272 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,65 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1503 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6545 




TRY


Turkish lira


4,6732 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5357 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5290 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,7413 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6803 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6288 




KRW


South Korean won


1 327,03 




ZAR


South African rand


14,7820 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8340 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4325 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 662,48 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8578 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,872 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,0723 




THB


Thai baht


39,003 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,9368 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,2262 




INR


Indian rupee


79,1800 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-919/16: Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Collins v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities — Action manifestly inadmissible — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, damages, jurisdiction, parliamentary immunity








C_2018123EN.01002102.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/21





Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Collins v Parliament
(Case T-919/16) (1)

((Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities - Action manifestly inadmissible - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2018/C 123/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jane Maria Collins (Hotham, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Anderson, solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alonso de León and M. Dean, Agents)

Re:

Concerning, first, an action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 not to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant, secondly, an action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly incurred as a result of that decision and, thirdly, a request that the General Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Jane Maria Collins is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Case C-264/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — International air freight forwarding services — Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, air freight rate, air transport, cartel, international transport, price agreement








C_2018112EN.01000401.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/4





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-264/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services))
(2018/C 112/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd (represented by: F. Montag and M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Hoseinian, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd and Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
Call for proposals — EIBI’s 2018 Social Innovation Tournament
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: European Investment Bank
Subjects: European social policy, innovation, invitation to tender, marginalisation, sustainable development








C_2018037EN.01002701.xml










1.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/27







Call for proposals
EIBI’s 2018 Social Innovation Tournament
(2018/C 37/08)

EIB Institute organises its seventh Social Innovation Tournament.
The SIT promotes innovative ideas and rewards opportunities that create societal impact, covering projects in a wide range of fields — from education, healthcare and job creation, to new technologies, new systems and new processes. All projects compete for two prizes in a General Category, and projects addressing this year’s topic of sustainable development (with special emphasis on circular economy) will also compete for two prizes in the Special Category. Winning projects in both categories are awarded a 1st and 2nd prize of EUR 50 000 and EUR 20 000 respectively.
Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/EibInstitute
For further information on this tournament and how to submit an innovative proposal, go to:
http://institute.eib.org/programmes/social/social-innovation-tournament/
Case T-265/17: Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark EXPRESSVPN — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for alteration — Single head of claim — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, information technology industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018112EN.01003201.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/32





Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN)
(Case T-265/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark EXPRESSVPN - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for alteration - Single head of claim - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 112/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ExpressVPN Ltd (Glen Vine, Isle of Man) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 (Case R 1352/2016-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union No 1 265 562 of the figurative mark EXPRESSVPN.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


ExpressVPN Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.