do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8781 — Waterland/De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, gas supply, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2018045EN.01000201.xml










7.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8781 — Waterland/De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 45/03)
On 2 February 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 32018M8781. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-86/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, sanction (EU), service concession








C_2018161EN.01001901.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/19





Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-86/18)
(2018/C 161/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, F. Thiran, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 51 of that directive;










—


Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 12 920 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/23/EU;










—


Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Under Article 51(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice










2.


The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 12 920 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it.
Case C-87/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, infringement procedure (EU), invitation to tender, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), services contract, supplies contract, works contract








C_2018161EN.01002001.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/20





Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-87/18)
(2018/C 161/22)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, F. Thiran, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90(1) of that directive;










—


Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 11 628 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/24/EU;










—


Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Under Article 90(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.










2.


The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 11 628 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it.
Case T-794/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Ice cream cornet packaging) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an ice cream cornet — Earlier international registration designating Bulgaria — Ground for invalidity — Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 — Duty of diligence — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, packaging product








C_2018104EN.01003601.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/36





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Ice cream cornet packaging)
(Case T-794/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an ice cream cornet - Earlier international registration designating Bulgaria - Ground for invalidity - Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 - Duty of diligence - Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))
(2018/C 104/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 (Case R 1144/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret and Mrs Zaharieva.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 September 2016 (Case R 1144/2015-3);










2.


Grants the application for a declaration that the design registered under number 002343244-0001 is invalid;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










4.


Orders Mrs Elka Zaharieva to bear her own costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case C-88/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, energy demand, infringement procedure (EU), invitation to tender, national implementing measure, postal service, sanction (EU), services of general interest, transport network, water supply








C_2018161EN.01002002.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/20





Action brought on 7 February 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-88/18)
(2018/C 161/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, F. Thiran, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106(1) of that directive;










—


Impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 11 628 per day as of the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil its obligation to communicate to the Commission the measures transposing Directive 2014/25/EU;










—


Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Under Article 106(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Member States were required to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Given that Luxembourg has not communicated the measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.










2.


The Commission in its action proposes that a daily penalty payment of EUR 11 628 be imposed on Luxembourg. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated to take into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the penalty payment’s dissuasive effect, in the light of that Member State’s capacity to pay it.
Case C-206/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen, intervening party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental protection, local legislation, public consultation, town and country planning, town planning








C_2018190EN.01001902.xml










4.6.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/19





Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen, intervening party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Case C-206/17) (1)

(2018/C 190/30)
Language of the case: German
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case T-70/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, health service, medical device, registered trade mark, sound reproduction equipment, trade-mark law, voluntary work








C_2018112EN.01004501.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/45





Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)
(Case T-70/18)
(2018/C 112/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pansch and A. Sabellek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘HEAR THE WORLD’ — Application for registration No 15 274 426

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 in Case R 1645/2017-5

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 2017/1001.
Case T-795/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ v Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CRABS — Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ — 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: 2018-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018104EN.01003701.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/37





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ v Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)
(Case T-795/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CRABS - Earlier international registration of the figurative mark РАКОВЫЕ ШЕЙКИ - 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 104/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2507/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Moscow Confectionary Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Guideline (EU) 2018/572 of the European Central Bank of 7 February 2018 amending Guideline ECB/2014/31 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2018/5)
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, central bank, credit guarantee, euro area, financial instrument, money market, securities




L_2018095EN.01004901.xml










13.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 95/49








            GUIDELINE (EU) 2018/572 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
         
of 7 February 2018
         
amending Guideline ECB/2014/31 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2018/5)


THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,


Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular the first indent of Article 3.1, and Articles 5.1, 12.1, 14.3 and 18.2 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) has decided that commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBSs) should be made ineligible as collateral under the Eurosystem collateral framework as the risks and complexity of CMBSs are substantially different, both in terms of underlying assets and structural features, from other asset-backed securities accepted by the Eurosystem as collateral.












(2)


Therefore, Guideline ECB/2014/31 (1) should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS GUIDELINE:



Article 1

Amendment

In Article 3(1)(a) of Guideline ECB/2014/31, point (iii) is deleted.


Article 2

Taking effect


1.   This Guideline shall take effect on the day of its notification to the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro.


2.   The national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Guideline and apply them from 16 April 2018. They shall notify the ECB of the texts and means relating to those measures by 16 March 2018 at the latest.



Article 3

Addressees

This Guideline is addressed to all Eurosystem central banks.




Done at Frankfurt am Main, 7 February 2018.


For the Governing Council of the ECB


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
            





(1)  Guideline ECB/2014/31 of 9 July 2014 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral and amending Guideline ECB/2007/9 (OJ L 240, 13.8.2014, p. 28).
Case T-204/17: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, piping, plumbing equipment, rights of the defence, steel, tube








C_2018123EN.01002701.xml










9.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/27





Order of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission
(Case T-204/17) (1)

(2018/C 123/34)
Language of the case: Swedish
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8693 — EDF/Canadian Solar/JV) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, merger control, photovoltaic cell, subsidiary








C_2018045EN.01000101.xml










7.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8693 — EDF/Canadian Solar/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 45/01)
On 1 February 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 32018M8693. 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.8725 — Nufarm/Century) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2018-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural production, economic concentration, merger control, plant health product, seed








C_2018045EN.01000401.xml










7.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/4





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8725 — Nufarm/Century)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 45/06)






1.


On 30 January 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Nufarm Europe GmbH (Germany), controlled by Nufarm Ltd (Australia),










—


Century, portfolio of assets belonging to Adama Agricultural Solutions Ltd (Israel) and Syngenta AG (Switzerland).




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










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Nufarm: crop protection products and seeds technologies,
—   for Century: portfolio of crop protection products including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, seed treatments and plant growth regulators in the EEA.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.8725 — Nufarm/Century
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’).