do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-765/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2018 — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, consumer price, fixing of prices, gas supply, natural gas, single market








C_2019112EN.01001702.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2018 — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI
(Case C-765/18)
(2019/C 112/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH

Defendant: RI

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, (1) read in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that failure to give gas customers timely and direct notice of the preconditions, reasons for and extent of an imminent change in the tariff for gas supplies precludes the effectiveness of such a change in tariff?










2.


If that question is answered in the affirmative:
Has Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, read in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, had direct effect since 1 July 2004 in respect of a supply company incorporated under private law (as a German GmbH), because the abovementioned provisions of that directive are unconditional, so far as their subject matter is concerned, and can therefore be applied without any further implementing act, and confer rights on citizens vis-à-vis an organisation which, despite its private-law legal form, is subject to the authority of the State because the State is the sole shareholder in the undertaking?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.
Case T-22/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Portugal v Commission (EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Article 31(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Lack of evidence of serious and reasonable doubt — Key controls — Ancillary controls)
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, regional aid, regional development, rural development








C_2019072EN.01002301.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/23






Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-22/17) (1)

((EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Article 31(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Lack of evidence of serious and reasonable doubt - Key controls - Ancillary controls))
(2019/C 72/28)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: P. Estêvão, L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena, A. Sauka and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the competent paying agency of the Portuguese Republic under the EAFRD in the total amount of EUR 1 990 810,30.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8747 — Bolloré/APMM/CIT) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: container, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, merger control








C_2018439EN.01003001.xml










6.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/30






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8747 — Bolloré/APMM/CIT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 439/16)

1.   
On 29 Novemnber 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:






—


Bolloré Africa Logistics (France), belonging to the Bolloré Group,










—


APM Terminals BV (‘APMT’, Denmark), controlled by A.P. Møller-Mærsk A/S (‘APMM’),










—


Côte d’Ivoire Terminal (‘CIT’, Ivory Coast).




Bolloré Africa Logistics and APMT acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of CIT.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Bolloré Africa Logistics: logistics services, including freight forwarding, customs clearance and warehousing, and port terminal and railway management and operations,
—   for APMT: operation of container terminals,
—   for CIT: development and operation of a new deep sea container terminal in the Port of Abidjan, Ivory Coast, intended to accommodate large deep-sea vessels and a trans-shipment hub.


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.8747 — Bolloré/APMM/CIT
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-719/18: Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, cultural event, hotel industry, provision of services, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2019044EN.01007902.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/79






Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)
(Case T-719/18)
(2019/C 44/106)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Telemark plus eV (Altusried, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Telemarkfest — Application No 16 615 114

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2018 in Case R 346/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reformulate the contested decision as follows by deleting point No 3 of the operative part: ‘[The Board of Appeal hereby:]






1.


Annuls the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the application in respect of the services “Entertainment services; Arranging of transportation for travel tours; Cultural activities; Sporting activities; Services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation” has been rejected;










2.


Allows the EU trade mark application also to proceed in respect of those services’;














—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-675/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training — Host Member State’s powers of investigation)
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, vocational training








C_2019044EN.01000502.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/5






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl
(Case C-675/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training - Host Member State’s powers of investigation))
(2019/C 44/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ministero della Salute

Defendant: Hannes Preindl

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 21, 22 and 24 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as obliging a Member State, whose legislation creates a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled on two courses at the same time, automatically to recognise the evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State on the completion of partially concurrent training.










2.


Article 21 and Article 22(a) of Directive 2005/36 must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from verifying compliance with the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of part-time training are not lower than those of continuous full-time training.






(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Case T-665/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CCB — Earlier EU figurative mark CB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now second sentence of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019072EN.01003002.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/30






Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB)
(Case T-665/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CCB - Earlier EU figurative mark CB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now second sentence of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 72/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Groupement des cartes bancaires (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Groupement des cartes bancaires and China Construction Bank.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders China Construction Bank Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1956 of 6 December 2018 approving an amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (‘Μαντινεία’ (Mantinia) (PDO))
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Greece, Peloponnese, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, sparkling wine, white wine








L_2018315EN.01002201.xml










12.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 315/22








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1956
of 6 December 2018
         
approving an amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (‘Μαντινεία’ (Mantinia) (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission has examined the application for the approval of an amendment to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Μαντινεία’ (Mantinia), sent by Greece in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(2)


The Commission has published the application for the approval of an amendment to the specification in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (2).












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendment to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendment to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Μαντινεία’ (Mantinia) (PDO) is hereby approved.


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, 6 December 2018.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 302, 28.8.2018, p. 13.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2018439EN.01000902.xml










6.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/9






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2018/C 439/06)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


6.10.2018




Duration


6.10.2018-31.12.2018




Member State


Belgium




Stock or Group of stocks


LEZ/*8ABDE (special condition to LEZ/07.)




Species


Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)




Zone


8a, 8b, 8d and 8e




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


37/TQ120






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-531/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Coveris Rigid France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of personal liability — No economic continuity — Equal treatment)
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, equal treatment, foodstuff, infringement of EU law, packaging product, restriction on competition, retail selling, retail trade








C_2019065EN.01003201.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/32






Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Coveris Rigid France v Commission
(Case T-531/15) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of personal liability - No economic continuity - Equal treatment))
(2019/C 65/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Coveris Rigid France, formerly Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France (Auneau, France) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, C. Graf York von Wartenburg and L. Stammwitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Jimeno Fernández and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging) in so far as it applies to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Coveris Rigid France to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
Case T-817/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark V — Earlier international figurative mark V — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier trade mark — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Relative ground for refusal — 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: 2018-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019072EN.01002002.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/20






Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)
(Case T-817/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark V - Earlier international figurative mark V - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier trade mark - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Relative ground for refusal - 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)))
(2019/C 72/25)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Hanne, subsequently by: A. Söder and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 (Case R 2030/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deichmann and Vans.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case T-848/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (V) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark V — Earlier international figurative marks V — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier trade mark — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))
Date: 2018-12-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019072EN.01002101.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/21






Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (V)
(Case T-848/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark V - Earlier international figurative marks V - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier trade mark - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)))
(2019/C 72/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 (Case R 2129/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deichmann and Vans.

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 20 September 2016 (Case R 2129/2015-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Deichmann SE;










3.


Orders Vans, Inc. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.