do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-288/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares, Coprova, E-Labo France, Smakq développement v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, interveners: Société J. Cortès France, Scandinavian Tobacco Group France, Villiger France
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, freedom of expression, ownership, preparation for market, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, tobacco industry, trade mark








C_2019016EN.01003201.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/32






Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des fabricants de cigares, Coprova, E-Labo France, Smakq développement v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, interveners: Société J. Cortès France, Scandinavian Tobacco Group France, Villiger France
(Case C-288/17) (1)

(2019/C 16/40)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case T-537/13: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v EUIPO — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01006501.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/65






Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v EUIPO — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)
(Case T-537/13) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
(2018/C 427/86)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Baumann, C. Straßberger and F. Römisch, lawyers)

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 intervening before the General Court: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, J. Springer, A. Wagner and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2013 (Case R 1866/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roeckl Sporthandschuhe and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG are ordered to bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Case C-310/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, detention before trial, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, rights of the defence








C_2018408EN.01003201.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/32






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev
(Case C-310/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence - Public references to guilt - Remedies - Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention))
(2018/C 408/41)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Еmil Milev

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 and Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption of preliminary decisions of a procedural nature, such as a decision taken by a judicial authority that pre-trial detention should continue, which are based on suspicion or on incriminating evidence, provided that such decisions do not refer to the person in custody as being guilty. However, that directive does not govern the circumstances in which decisions on pre-trial detention may be adopted.


(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case C-312/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — Surjit Singh Bedi v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(2) — Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of disability — Collective agreement on social security — Bridging assistance paid to former civilian employees of the Allied forces in Germany — Termination of the payment of that assistance when the recipient becomes entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for disabled persons under the statutory pension scheme)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, civilian personnel, collective agreement, disability insurance, discrimination based on disability, early retirement, equal treatment, labour standard, pension scheme, retirement conditions








C_2018408EN.01002302.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/23






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — Surjit Singh Bedi v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland
(Case C-312/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(2) - Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of disability - Collective agreement on social security - Bridging assistance paid to former civilian employees of the Allied forces in Germany - Termination of the payment of that assistance when the recipient becomes entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for disabled persons under the statutory pension scheme))
(2018/C 408/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Surjit Singh Bedi

Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the payment of bridging assistance — granted with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence to a worker who has lost his job until he is entitled to a retirement pension under the statutory pension scheme — must cease once that worker is entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for severely disabled persons under that scheme.


(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9086 — 3i/Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension/Tampnet) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, supplementary pension, telecommunications








C_2018332EN.01000701.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9086 — 3i/Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension/Tampnet)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 332/08)

1.   
On 12 September 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:






—


3i Group plc (‘3i’, United Kingdom),










—


Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension (‘ATP’, Denmark),










—


Brent Holding AS (‘Target’, Norway).




3i and ATP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Target.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for 3i: investor and investment management business focused on mid-market private equity and infrastructure investments,
—   for ATP: public pension provider with investment arm managing ATP’s assets;
—   for Target: provider of communication infrastructure and services to the offshore industry operating under the name Tampnet.


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.9086 — 3i/Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension/Tampnet
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-550/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Harrington Padrón/Council
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, presidential election, principle of proportionality, proof








C_2018427EN.01008601.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/86






Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Harrington Padrón/Council
(Case T-550/18)
(2018/C 427/113)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.






—


In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Case T-652/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany — Earlier national word mark TEDDY — Relative ground for refusal — Principle of ne ultra petita — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01002802.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/28






Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)
(Case T-652/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany - Earlier national word mark TEDDY - Relative ground for refusal - Principle of ne ultra petita - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 392/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH (Lügde, Germany) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli and Eddy’s Snack Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH in the proceedings before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.