do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-62/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PUMA — Earlier international figurative trade marks PUMA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01003902.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/39






Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)
(Case T-62/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PUMA - Earlier international figurative trade marks PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, South Korea) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented by: R. Böhm and S. Overhage, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd.

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 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Puma SE;










3.


Orders Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Case C-98/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France SAS v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for smart card chips — Network of bilateral contacts — Exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Single and continuous infringement — Participation in the infringement and awareness, by a participant in some of the bilateral contacts, of the other bilateral contacts — Judicial review)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, electronic component, exchange of information, judicial review, restriction on competition, trade information








C_2018408EN.01001501.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/15






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France SAS v European Commission
(Case C-98/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for smart card chips - Network of bilateral contacts - Exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Single and continuous infringement - Participation in the infringement and awareness, by a participant in some of the bilateral contacts, of the other bilateral contacts - Judicial review))
(2018/C 408/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France SAS (represented by: J.K. de Pree, A.M. ter Haar and T.M. Snoep, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France SAS to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case T-583/18: Action brought on 26 September 2018 — Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen v Commission
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, Lower Saxony, State aid, carriage of passengers, control of State aid, land transport, passenger tariff, services of general interest, suburban transport








C_2018427EN.01009501.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/95






Action brought on 26 September 2018 — Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen v Commission
(Case T-583/18)
(2018/C 427/125)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: C. Antweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 concerning the applicant’s aid complaint of 28 September 2016 — SA.46538 (2017/NN).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 relating to its aid complaint in respect of the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law of Lower Saxony relating to Local Transport; ‘the NNVG’) (Case SA. 46538 (2017/NN)) (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 2).
The action is based on the following pleas in law:






1.


Failure to notify as an aid scheme (infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU)
By the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the NNVG concerns a new aid scheme which ought to have been notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.










2.


Failure to notify as a general rule (infringement of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))
By the second plea in law, the applicant submits that the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the NNVG constitutes an autonomous rule on financial compensation for public service obligations which establishes maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility and which the Land of Lower Saxony intended should be excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1370/2007. Consequently, Paragraph 7a of the NNVG ought to have been notified to the Commission in accordance with the second sentence of Article 3(3) of that regulation.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9080 — CEFC/Rockaway Capital/European Bridge Travel (II)) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, holding company, investment company, mechanical engineering, merger control, metalworking, property leasing, sports body, tourism








C_2018362EN.01000101.xml










8.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9080 — CEFC/Rockaway Capital/European Bridge Travel (II))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 362/01)
On 26 September 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 32018M9080. 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.9005 — Booking Holdings/HotelsCombined) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, supply, travel








C_2018344EN.01000301.xml










26.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9005 — Booking Holdings/HotelsCombined)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 344/03)

1.   
On 18 September 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:






—


Booking Holdings Inc. (‘Booking Holdings’, US)










—


HotelsCombined Pty Ltd (‘HotelsCombined’, Australia)




Booking Holdings acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of HotelsCombined.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Booking Holdings: supply of online travel and related services. Its core brands include Booking.com, priceline.com, agoda.com, KAYAK, Rentalcars.com and OpenTable. It is headquartered in the United States and offers its services in more than 220 countries and territories in Europe, North America, South America, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East and Africa.
—   for HotelsCombined: active in the online travel sector and provides metasearch services solely in respect of hotels and other accomodations. It is headquartered in Australia and offers services in over 50 countries.


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.9005 — Booking Holdings/HotelsCombined
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’).
Case C-175/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X v Belastingdienst/Toeslagen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Directive 2005/85/EC — Article 39 — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 13 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Principle of non-refoulement — Decision rejecting an application for asylum and imposing an obligation to return — National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction — Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, foreign national, refugee, removal, return migration, right of asylum, right to justice, suspension of sentence








C_2018408EN.01001902.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/19






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X v Belastingdienst/Toeslagen
(Case C-175/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2005/85/EC - Article 39 - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 13 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Principle of non-refoulement - Decision rejecting an application for asylum and imposing an obligation to return - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))
(2018/C 408/23)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State — Netherlands

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement.


(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Case C-180/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 13 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Principle of non-refoulement — Decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return — National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction — Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, foreign national, illegal migration, national law, removal, return migration, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2018408EN.01002101.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/21






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-180/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 13 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Principle of non-refoulement - Decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))
(2018/C 408/25)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: X, Y

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection and Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement.


(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Case C-513/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Josef Baumgartner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 19(2), first subparagraph — Administrative penalty for an infringement committed in the Member State of the seat of an undertaking imposed by the competent authorities of another Member State in which the infringement was detected)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative offence, administrative sanction, driving period, rest period, road safety, road transport, territorial jurisdiction








C_2018408EN.01002901.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/29






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Josef Baumgartner
(Case C-513/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 19(2), first subparagraph - Administrative penalty for an infringement committed in the Member State of the seat of an undertaking imposed by the competent authorities of another Member State in which the infringement was detected))
(2018/C 408/37)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Josef Baumgartner

Other parties: Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Staatsanwaltschaft Köln

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as directly authorising the competent authorities of a Member State to impose a penalty on an undertaking or a manager of the undertaking for an infringement of that regulation detected in its territory for which no penalty has already been imposed, even if the infringement was committed in the territory of another Member State in which the undertaking has its seat.


(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Case T-682/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — France v Commission (EAGF — Area-linked aid — Procedure for the suspension of monthly payments to a Member State — Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Key components of the national control system — Deficiencies found — Action plan including clear progress indicators established in consultation with the Commission — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGF, action programme, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, single payment scheme








C_2018427EN.01004502.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/45






Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — France v Commission
(Case T-682/16) (1)

(EAGF - Area-linked aid - Procedure for the suspension of monthly payments to a Member State - Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Key components of the national control system - Deficiencies found - Action plan including clear progress indicators established in consultation with the Commission - Proportionality)
(2018/C 427/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, D. Segoin, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016 suspending monthly payments to the French Republic under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


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










3.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Corrigendum to Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (OJ C 318, 10.9.2018)
Date: 2018-09-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Italy, data processing, electronic document, electronic government, electronic signature, identity document, residence permit, service, single market








C_2018344EN.01001101.xml










26.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/11






Corrigendum to Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 318 of 10 September 2018
)
(2018/C 344/09)
On page 2, in the table, in the entry for Italy, under ‘Level of assurance’:

for:

‘Substantial
Low’,


read:

‘High
Substantial
Low’.

On page 2, in the table, in the entry for Italy, under ‘eID means under the notified scheme’:

for:






‘—


Telecom Italia










—


Trust Technologies S.r.l.’,





read:







‘—


Telecom Italia Trust Technologies S.r.l.’.