do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1630 of 24 October 2018 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Lička janjetina’ (PGI))
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: County of Lika-Senj, Croatia, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, sheepmeat








L_2018272EN.01001601.xml










31.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 272/16








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1630
of 24 October 2018
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Lička janjetina’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Lička janjetina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Lička janjetina’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Lička janjetina’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. — Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 October 2018.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 11.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9049 — E.ON/Clever/UFC Scandinavia JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, land transport, merger control








C_2018384EN.01000901.xml










24.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9049 — E.ON/Clever/UFC Scandinavia JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 384/06)

1.   
On 17 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:






—


E.ON (Germany),










—


Clever A/S (‘Clever’, Denmark), controlled by SEAS-NVE.




E.ON and Clever acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation, joint control over a newly-created joint venture.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly-created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


E.ON is an energy company with activities in 3 main business areas: (i) energy networks; (ii) renewable energies; and (iii) customer solutions, including electricity and gas retail supply,










—


Clever is an electric mobility service provider, active in charging solutions to companies, public institutions and end customers,










—


The JV will develop and operate ultra-fast charging (UFC) stations for electric vehicles in Norway, Sweden and Denmark.






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.9049 — E.ON/Clever/UFC Scandinavia JV
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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9048 — Delta Electronics/Delta Electronics Thailand) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: automation, economic concentration, electronics industry, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2018407EN.01000102.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 407/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9048 — Delta Electronics/Delta Electronics Thailand)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 407/02)
On 24 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 32018M9048. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Ireland (11282/2018 — C8-0389/2018 — 2018/0809(CNS))
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: DNA, Ireland, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, exchange of information, information system, personal data








C_2020345EN.01023601.xml










16.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/236






P8_TA(2018)0409
Launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Ireland *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Ireland (11282/2018 — C8-0389/2018 — 2018/0809(CNS))
(Consultation)
(2020/C 345/38)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (11282/2018),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0389/2018),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0343/2018),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.
Case T-261/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Bayer v EUIPO — UNI-Pharma (SALOSPIR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark SALOSPIR — Earlier EU figurative marks representing coloured stripes and earlier national marks Aspirin — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Use of a sign of more than mere local significance in the course of trade — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018445EN.01001701.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/17






Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Bayer v EUIPO — UNI-Pharma (SALOSPIR)
(Case T-261/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SALOSPIR - Earlier EU figurative marks representing coloured stripes and earlier national marks Aspirin - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Use of a sign of more than mere local significance in the course of trade - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 445/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Uni-Pharma Kleon Tsetis, Farmakeutika Ergastiria AVEE (Kifisia, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2017 (Case R 2444/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bayer and Uni-Pharma Kleon Tsetis, Farmakeutika Ergastiria.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bayer AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Uni-Pharma Kleon Tsetis, Farmakeutika Ergastiria AVEE in the proceedings before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case C-124/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 57 – Directive 2014/25/EU – Article 80 – Public procurement – Procedure – Exclusion grounds – Maximum duration of the exclusion period – Obligation for the economic operator to collaborate with the contracting authority in order to demonstrate its reliability)
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, cartel, invitation to tender, national law, restriction on competition








C_2019004EN.01000201.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH
(Case C-124/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 80 - Public procurement - Procedure - Exclusion grounds - Maximum duration of the exclusion period - Obligation for the economic operator to collaborate with the contracting authority in order to demonstrate its reliability)
(2019/C 4/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Vergabekammer Südbayern

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vossloh Laeis GmbH

Defendant: Stadtwerke München GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 80 of 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, read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of 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, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which requires an economic operator wishing to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of a relevant ground for exclusion to clarify the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct committed in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating authority, but also with the contracting authority, in the context of the latter’s specific role, in order to provide it with proof of the re-establishment of its reliability, to the extent that that cooperation is limited to the measures strictly necessary for that examination.










2.


Article 57(7) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an economic operator has been engaged in conduct falling within the ground for exclusion referred to in Article 57(4)(d) of that directive, which has been penalised by a competent authority, the maximum period of exclusion is calculated from the date of the decision of that authority.






(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Case T-447/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of an L-shaped groove) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark representing an L-shaped groove – Absolute ground for refusal – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 – Application of the law ratione temporis – Shape of the goods – Nature of the sign – Account taken of material relevant to identifying the essential characteristics of the sign – General interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94)
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2019004EN.01002301.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/23






Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of an L-shaped groove)
(Case T-447/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing an L-shaped groove - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 - Application of the law ratione temporis - Shape of the goods - Nature of the sign - Account taken of material relevant to identifying the essential characteristics of the sign - General interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94)
(2019/C 4/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

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

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Martucci and I. Gatto, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yokohama Rubber and Pirelli Tyre.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 April 2016 (Case R 2583/2014 5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA;










3.


Orders Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
Case T-162/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Fernández González v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Vacancy notice relating to a temporary agent post falling under Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Rejection of application — Plea of illegality — Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Liability — Loss of opportunity)
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), damages, job vacancy, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2018445EN.01001602.xml










10.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/16






Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Fernández González v Commission
(Case T-162/17 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Vacancy notice relating to a temporary agent post falling under Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Rejection of application - Plea of illegality - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Liability - Loss of opportunity))
(2018/C 445/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Elia Fernández González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirchfeld and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroek and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision of 14 November 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for the temporary agent post that is the subject of vacancy notice COM/2014/2036 and annulment of the decision of 22 May 2015 rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint and, second, compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 14 November 2014 rejecting the application of Ms Fernández González for the temporary agent post that is the subject of vacancy notice COM/2014/2036;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay to Ms Fernández González the amount of EUR 12 000 plus default interest from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the payment is made at an annual rate equal to the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for principal refinancing operations, increased by 2 percentage points;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under the number F-121/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-29/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — RQ v Commission (Civil service – Officials – Director-General of OLAF – Decision waiving the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings – Lis pendens – Act adversely affecting a person – Obligation to state reasons – Duty of assistance and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials – Legitimate expectations – Rights of the defence)
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Member of the European Parliament, managing director, parliamentary immunity, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations








C_2019004EN.01002501.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/25






Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — RQ v Commission
(Case T-29/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Director-General of OLAF - Decision waiving the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings - Lis pendens - Act adversely affecting a person - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of assistance and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence)
(2019/C 4/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RQ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive the applicant’s immunity from legal proceedings and, so far as necessary, of Commission Decision Ares(2016) 5814495 of 5 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the first decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning a request to waive RQ’s immunity from legal proceedings;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.