do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9117 — Saudi Aramco/Arlanxeo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, oil industry, petroleum product








C_2018365EN.01000401.xml










9.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 365/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9117 — Saudi Aramco/Arlanxeo)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 365/06)

1.   
On 2 October 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:






—


Aramco Overseas Holdings Coöperatief U.A. (the Netherlands) (‘AOHC’), a wholly owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabian Oil Company (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) (‘Saudi Aramco’), and










—


Arlanxeo Holding B.V. (the Netherlands) (‘Arlanxeo’).




Saudi Aramco, through its wholly owned subsidiary AOHC, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Arlanxeo. Arlanxeo is currently jointly controlled by Saudi Aramco and Lanxess Deutschland GmbH.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Saudi Aramco is engaged in the exploration, production and marketing of crude oil and in the product and marketing of refined products.










—


Arlanxeo is a specialty chemicals company that produces and offers a broad range of synthetic rubbers products.






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.9117 — Saudi Aramco/Arlanxeo
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-607/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2018436EN.01006201.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/62






Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)
(Case T-607/18)
(2018/C 436/86)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of an EU figurative mark of a representation of a leaf — Application for registration No 16 709 305

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 21962017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims principally that the Court should:






1.


annul the contested decision in its entirety, and






(a)


confirm that the mark applied for has the required distinctiveness as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods refused in Classes 3 and 16










(b)


annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal










(c)


refer the case back before the Board of Appeal for examination as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’;














2.


order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of the action before both the General Court and EUIPO.




In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:






1.


annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal










2.


refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’










3.


order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court.




In the further alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:






1.


annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal










2.


refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’










3.


order EUIPO to pay that part of the applicant’s costs which the Court considers appropriate.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001.
Case T-611/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval








C_2018455EN.01002901.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/29






Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA
(Case T-611/18)
(2018/C 455/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A. (Starogard Gdański, Poland) (represented by: M. Martens, N. Carbonnelle, lawyers and S. Faircliffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the EMA’s decision of 30 July 2018 not to validate the applicant’s marketing authorisation application for Dimethyl Fumarate Polpharma, a generic version of Tecfidera;










—


order the EMA to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
The contested decision refuses to validate the applicant’s marketing authorisation application for Dimethyl Fumarate Polpharma in consideration of the fact that the reference product allegedly benefits from regulatory data protection.
An exception of illegality based on Article 277 TFEU is directed against the decision granting marketing authorisation to the reference medicinal product insofar as it expresses a manifestly erroneous conclusion regarding that product’s difference from Fumaderm for ‘global marketing authorisation’ purposes. Under a single plea in law, the applicant submits that, the exception of illegality being admissible and well-founded, the statement of reasons of the contested decision not to validate the applicant’s application for marketing authorisation is not legally admissible under Article 296 TFEU.
Case T-634/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Pint v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 — Refusal of access — Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — General presumption of confidentiality — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, consumer protection, conversion rate, debt, foreign currency, infringement procedure (EU), judicial investigation, national implementing measure, unfair terms of contract








C_2018427EN.01006101.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/61






Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Pint v Commission
(Case T-634/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal of access - Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)
(2018/C 427/80)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Anikó Pint (Göd, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 1 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Anikó Pint to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Case T-885/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Mass Response Service v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Concentrations — Retail market for mobile telecommunications services and market for wholesale access and call origination in Germany — Acquisition of E-plus by Telefónica Deutschland — Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Implementation of the non-MNO component of the Final Commitments — Acts against which no action may be brought — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, admissibility, competition policy, domestic market, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications, wholesale trade








C_2018427EN.01004701.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/47






Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Mass Response Service v Commission
(Case T-885/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Retail market for mobile telecommunications services and market for wholesale access and call origination in Germany - Acquisition of E-plus by Telefónica Deutschland - Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Implementation of the non-MNO component of the Final Commitments - Acts against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility)
(2018/C 427/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mass Response Service GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, M. Farley and C. Vollrath, acting as agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, in particular, annulment of the alleged decisions of the Commission contained in the emails of 24 and 29 October 2016 relating to the implementation of the non-MNO remedy provided for in the Final Commitments made obligatory by Commission Decision C(2014) 4443 final of 2 July 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments (Case COMP/M.7018 Telefónica Deutschland v E-plus).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Declares that there is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG and Drillisch AG.










3.


Orders Mass Response Service GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


Orders Telefónica Deutschland Holding to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.










5.


Orders Drillisch AG to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case T-632/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 — Refusal of access — Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — General presumption of confidentiality — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, consumer protection, conversion rate, debt, foreign currency, infringement procedure (EU), judicial investigation, national implementing measure, unfair terms of contract








C_2018427EN.01006001.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/60






Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission
(Case T-632/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal of access - Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)
(2018/C 427/78)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Éva Erdősi Galcsikné (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 1 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Éva Erdősi Galcsikné to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Council Decision (EU) 2018/1518 of 9 October 2018 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Banco de España
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European System of Central Banks, Spain, accountant, auditing, central bank, euro area




L_2018256EN.01006301.xml










12.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 256/63








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/1518
of 9 October 2018
         
amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Banco de España


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,


Having regard to the Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2018 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Banco de España (ECB/2018/22) (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council of the European Union.












(2)


The mandate of Banco de España's current external auditors expired following the audit for the financial year 2017. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2018.












(3)


Banco de España has selected the temporary association of undertakings Mazars Auditores, S.L.P. - Mazars, S.A. as its external auditors for the financial years 2018 to 2020, with the option to extend the mandate to the financial years 2021 and 2022.












(4)


The Governing Council of the ECB has recommended that the temporary association of undertakings Mazars Auditores, S.L.P. - Mazars, S.A. be appointed as the external auditors of Banco de España for the financial years 2018 to 2020, with the option to extend the mandate to the financial years 2021 and 2022.












(5)


Following the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB, Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 1 of Decision 1999/70/EC, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:


‘3.   Temporary association of undertakings Mazars Auditores, S.L.P. - Mazars, S.A. are hereby approved as the external auditors of Banco de España for the financial years 2018 to 2020.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on the date of its notification.


Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the ECB.




Done at Luxembourg, 9 October 2018.


For the Council


The President

E. KÖSTINGER
            





(1)  
            OJ C 325, 14.9.2018, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision 1999/70/EC of 25 January 1999 concerning the external auditors of the national central banks (OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 69).
Case T-697/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark COOKING CHEF GOURMET — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, prepared foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01006201.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/62






Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)
(Case T-697/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark COOKING CHEF GOURMET - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by M. Arnott and A. Nicholls, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2017 (Case R 231/2017-1) concerning the application for registration of the word sign COOKING CHEF GOURMET as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders De Longhi Benelux to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Corrigendum to the Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8993 — Huaxin/Juniper/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (OJ C 347, 28.9.2018)
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: computer network, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications








C_2018365EN.01000701.xml










9.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 365/7






Corrigendum to the Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8993 — Huaxin/Juniper/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 347 of 28 September 2018
)
(2018/C 365/08)
On page 19, point 1, sixth line:

for:


‘Shanghai Huaxin Juniper Networks Co., Ltd (“JV”, United States)’,


read:


‘Shanghai Huaxin Juniper Networks Co., Ltd. (“JV”, PRC).’
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9102 — Carlyle/Investindustrial/B&amp;B Italia/Louis Poulsen/Flos) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, furniture industry, holding company, investment company, lighting equipment, merger control








C_2018388EN.01000101.xml










26.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9102 — Carlyle/Investindustrial/B&B Italia/Louis Poulsen/Flos)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 388/01)
On 9 October 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 32018M9102. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.