do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-450/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU market, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, jurisdiction, principle of legal certainty, proof, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2018328EN.01003802.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/38






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission
(Case T-450/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2018/C 328/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan) and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd and J-Power Systems Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-441/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU market, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, jurisdiction, proof, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2018328EN.01003401.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/34






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission
(Case T-441/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2018/C 328/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Brugg Kabel AG (Brugg, Switzerland) and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (Brugg) (represented by: A. Rinne, A. Boos and M. Lichtenegger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by A. Israel, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: Ireland, administrator, competition (EU), information profession, translation








C_2018244EN.01000301.xml










12.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/3





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2018/C 244/04)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:






 


EPSO/AD/361/18 — IRISH-LANGUAGE (GA) TRANSLATORS (AD 5)




The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 244 A of 12 July 2018.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case T-449/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU market, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, equal treatment, jurisdiction, liability, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2018328EN.01003801.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/38






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
(Case T-449/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Illegal nature of the inspection decision - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Principle of personal responsibility - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Sufficient proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2018/C 328/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Nexans France SAS (Courbevoie, France) and Nexans SA (Courbevoie) (represented by: G. Forwood, lawyer, M. Powell, A. Rogers and A. Oh, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, and subsequently by C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
Case T-445/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Products concerned — Public distancing — Duration of participation — Equal treatment)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU market, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, equal treatment, jurisdiction, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2018328EN.01003502.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/35






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission
(Case T-445/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Products concerned - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment))
(2018/C 328/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland) and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by A. Bodnar, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ABB Ltd and ABB AB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-41/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas — Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Power to alter decisions)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018328EN.01004601.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/46






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear)
(Case T-41/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas - Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Power to alter decisions))
(2018/C 328/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, S. Cobet-Nüse and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte.

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 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5) in so far as, in that decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;










2.


Rejects the opposition brought by Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG, legal predecessor of Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH, for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lotte Co Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;










4.


Orders Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case C-455/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by Oliver Spieker against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2018 in Case T-92/18, Oliver Spieker v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01001801.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/18






Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by Oliver Spieker against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2018 in Case T-92/18, Oliver Spieker v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-455/18 P)
(2021/C 35/23)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Oliver Spieker (represented by: A. Schönfleisch, O. Spieker, M. Alber and N. Willich, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2018 in Case T-92/18, Spieker v EUIPO (Science for a better skin), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 December 2017 (R 1067/2017-4) which had dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the EUIPO examiner of 20 March 2017;










—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 (R 1067/2017-4);










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those necessarily incurred by the appellant before the Fourth Board of Appeal and the General Court of the European Union.




By order of 8 December 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.
Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR) — List of Member States who have decided the application of the PNR Directive to intra-EU flights as referred to in Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (If a Member State decides to apply this Directive to intra-EU flights, it shall notify the Commission in writing. A Member State may give or revoke such a notification at any time. The Commission shall publish that notification and any revocation of it in the Official Journal of the European Union) (OJ C 196, 8.6.2018)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, air safety, air transport, data collection, data protection, data transmission, personal data, protection of privacy, terrorism, traveller








C_2018244EN.01000601.xml










12.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/6





Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR)
List of Member States who have decided the application of the PNR Directive to intra-EU flights as referred to in Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime

(If a Member State decides to apply this Directive to intra-EU flights, it shall notify the Commission in writing. A Member State may give or revoke such a notification at any time. The Commission shall publish that notification and any revocation of it in the Official Journal of the European Union)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 196 of 8 June 2018
)
(2018/C 244/07)
On page 29:
The following Member State that has notified the Commission of the application of the PNR Directive in intra-EU flights is added:






—


Sweden
Case T-451/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU market, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, jurisdiction, proof, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2018328EN.01003901.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/39






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission
(Case T-451/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2018/C 328/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fujikura Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fujikura Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;










3.


Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-608/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2014 appraisal period — Promotion — 2015 appraisal period — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of power — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, pay scale, promotion, right to justice, staff assessment








C_2018328EN.01004201.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/42






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament
(Case T-608/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2014 appraisal period - Promotion - 2015 appraisal period - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of power - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))
(2018/C 328/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PA (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and V. Montebello-Demogeot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the applicant’s staff report for 2014, as finalised by the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 20 October 2015, second, of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 9 December 2015 awarding him one merit point for 2014, third, of the Parliament’s decision, communicated to the staff of that institution on 30 November 2015, not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 11 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 21 January 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 364 of 3.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case No F-38/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case C-707/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Pinzaru, Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Control of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Failure to comply with the obligation to declare — Penalties laid down by national law — Confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum — Custodial sentence — Fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, confiscation of property, free movement of capital, money, national law, ownership, penal code








C_2018341EN.01000201.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/2






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Pinzaru, Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu
(Case C-707/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Control of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Failure to comply with the obligation to declare - Penalties laid down by national law - Confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum - Custodial sentence - Fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum - Proportionality))
(2018/C 341/02)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Svilengrad

Parties to the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

Daniela Pinzaru, Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu

Operative part of the order

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a penalty for failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, imposes, first, confiscation by the State of the undeclared sum and, second, a custodial sentence of up to six years or a fine in the amount of twice the undeclared sum.


(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.