do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-5/18: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Hamburg BEER COMPANY — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, beverage, carriage of goods, clothing, household article, packaging, registered trade mark, storage of food, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01003801.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/38






Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)
(Case T-5/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Hamburg BEER COMPANY - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2019/C 65/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 (Case R 436/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Hamburg BEER COMPANY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Hamburg Beer Company GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Case T-100/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11. December 2018 — BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission (State aid — Steel industry — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the iron and steel industry — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test)
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, Walloon region (Belgium), control of State aid, holding company, iron and steel industry, loan, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, shareholding








C_2019072EN.01002302.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/23






Judgment of the General Court of 11. December 2018 — BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission
(Case T-100/17) (1)

((State aid - Steel industry - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the iron and steel industry - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))
(2019/C 72/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: BTB Holding Investments SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Duferco Participations Holding SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favart and Q. Declève, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Luengo and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: A. Verheyden and P. Laconte, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) granted by Belgium to Duferco (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Council Decision of 11 December 2018 adopting the Council’s position on the second draft budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU)




C_2018451EN.01000201.xml










14.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 451/2






COUNCIL DECISION
of 11 December 2018
adopting the Council’s position on the second draft budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019
(2018/C 451/02)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314(3) thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


on 30 November 2018, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the second draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019 (1),










(2)


the Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union (2), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (3),










(3)


given the need to adopt a Council position on the second draft budget as soon as possible with a view to a budget being definitively adopted before the beginning of the financial year 2019, thus ensuring the continuity of the Union’s action, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of National Parliaments, as well as the ten-day period foreseen for placing the item on the Council’s provisional agenda laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1.




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article
The Council’s position on the second draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019 was adopted by the Council on 11 December 2018.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/


Done at Brussels, 11 December 2018.


For the Council


The President

G. BLÜMEL




(1)  COM(2018) 900 final.

(2)  OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 105.

(3)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.
Case C-79/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, sanction (EU), service concession








C_2019103EN.01002101.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/21






Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
(Case C-79/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/23)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo apply
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, arms trade, data protection, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








C_2018446EN.01000101.xml










11.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 446/1






Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo apply
(2018/C 446/01)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 (2).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of RELEX (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is RELEX.1.C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 193, 23.7.2005, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.
Case C-76/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, public procurement, sanction (EU)








C_2019103EN.01002002.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/20






Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
(Case C-76/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/21)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8950 — BASF DOM Business/Solenis/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, merger control, water treatment








C_2019124EN.01000102.xml










3.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 124/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8950 — BASF DOM Business/Solenis/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 124/02)
On 11 December 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 32018M8950. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 201/01
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, economic concentration, logistics, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2021201EN.01000101.xml










28.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 201/01)
On 11 December 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 32018M8881. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-565/17: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Cheapflights — Referral of the trade mark application to the examiner for examination of the absolute grounds for refusal — Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark — Grounds of the contested decision containing an assessment of the validity of the earlier mark — Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark — Partial inadmissibility — Incidental submissions made on the basis on Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Withdrawal of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — No need to adjudicate in part)
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, computer equipment, data processing, provision of services, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01003602.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/36






Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)
(Case T-565/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cheapflights - Referral of the trade mark application to the examiner for examination of the absolute grounds for refusal - Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark - Grounds of the contested decision containing an assessment of the validity of the earlier mark - Challenge by the proprietor of the earlier mark - Partial inadmissibility - Incidental submissions made on the basis on Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Withdrawal of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - No need to adjudicate in part))
(2019/C 65/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Momondo Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 (R 1893/2011-G) relating to opposition proceedings between CheapFlights International and Momondo Group.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the closure of the appeal proceedings by the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 June 2017 (Case R 1893/2011-G) with regard to the goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 42 in respect of which the Opposition Division had rejected the opposition of CheapFlights International Ltd.










2.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible as to the remainder.










3.


CheapFlights International shall pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by EUIPO.










4.


EUIPO shall bear half of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case T-738/18: Action brought on 11 December 2018 — Dragnea v Commission
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, access to EU information, right to information, rights of the defence








C_2019065EN.01004302.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/43






Action brought on 11 December 2018 — Dragnea v Commission
(Case T-738/18)
(2019/C 65/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Liviu Dragnea (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision (OCM(2018)20575) sent to the legal representative of the applicant by letter dated 1 October 2018;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a breach of articles 9(1), 9(2) and 9(4) of the OLAF Regulation (1) and a violation of the rights of defence of the applicant in the investigations, including the right to be heard and the respect of the presumption of innocence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of sound administration in relation to the investigations as well as the refusal to open an investigation on the conduct of the OLAF investigation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right of access to documents concerning the OLAF investigation.






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999
Case T-441/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of third parties — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest)
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, access to information, control of State aid, housing, privatisation, right to information








C_2019072EN.01002802.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/28






Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission
(Case T-441/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of third parties - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))
(2019/C 72/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Arca Capital Bohemia a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Nedelka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s response of 13 March 2017 to the initial application for access to documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid and, secondly, of Commission Decision C(2017) 3129 final of 4 May 2017 refusing to grant such access.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Arca Capital Bohemia a.s. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case C-77/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, public procurement, sanction (EU)








C_2019103EN.01002003.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/20






Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
(Case C-77/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/22)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case T-6/18: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Hamburg Beer Company — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, catering industry, furniture industry, glass, household article, packaging product, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019065EN.01003901.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/39






Order of the General Court of 11 December 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)
(Case T-6/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Hamburg Beer Company - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2019/C 65/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2017 (Case R 437/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Hamburg Beer Company as an EU trade mark

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Hamburg Beer Company GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.