do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-677/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Biogaran v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions — Decision finding an infringement of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Agreements intended to delay, or even prevent, the market entry of generic versions of perindopril — Participation of a subsidiary in the infringement committed by its parent company — Imputation of the infringement — Joint and several liability — Ceiling of the fine)
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cardiovascular disease, cartel, control of restrictive practices, liability, market access, medicinal product, sanction (EU)








C_2019082EN.01002401.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/24






Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Biogaran v Commission
(Case T-677/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions - Decision finding an infringement of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Agreements intended to delay, or even prevent, the market entry of generic versions of perindopril - Participation of a subsidiary in the infringement committed by its parent company - Imputation of the infringement - Joint and several liability - Ceiling of the fine))
(2019/C 82/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Biogaran (Colombes, France) (represented by: T. Reymond, O. de Juvigny and J. Jourdan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi and B. Mongin, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Biogaran to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9217 — Engie/EDPR/Repsol/Windplus) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, renewable energy, wind energy








C_2019006EN.01000101.xml










9.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9217 — Engie/EDPR/Repsol/Windplus)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 6/01)
On 12 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 32018M9217. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-701/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Niche Generics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Patent dispute settlement agreement — Administrative procedure — Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients — Potential competition — Restriction of competition by object — Objective necessity of the restriction — Balance between competition law and patent law — Conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU — Fines — 10 % cap — Imputation of the unlawful conduct)
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative procedure, cardiovascular disease, cartel, competition law, medicinal product, patent law, professional secret, protection of communications, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2019082EN.01002901.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/29






Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Niche Generics v Commission
(Case T-701/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Patent dispute settlement agreement - Administrative procedure - Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients - Potential competition - Restriction of competition by object - Objective necessity of the restriction - Balance between competition law and patent law - Conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU - Fines - 10 % cap - Imputation of the unlawful conduct))
(2019/C 82/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Niche Generics Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) (represented by E. Batchelor, M. Healy, K. Cousins, Solicitors, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi and B. Mongin, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister-at-law)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Niche Generics Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Case C-783/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2018 in Case T-313/17, Wajos GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, flavouring, foodstuff, glass, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019112EN.01002201.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/22






Appeal brought on 12 December 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2018 in Case T-313/17, Wajos GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-783/18 P)
(2019/C 112/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


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

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


order Wajos GmbH to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO.





Pleas in law and main arguments

EUIPO submits that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1) The Court applied an incorrect test in the assessment of the distinctiveness of the mark at issue, did not examine the relevant criteria and relied on incorrect assessment criteria.
The judgment under appeal also infringes Article 36 and the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, since it allows neither the appellant nor the Court of Justice to understand the grounds on which the General Court came to conclusion — which was decisive as regards the operative part of the judgment — that the form of the mark at issue had ‘an exceptional nature, in view of the customs of the sector’.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Spain, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2018447EN.01000601.xml










12.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 447/6






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2018/C 447/10)
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


14.11.2018




Duration


14.11.2018-31.12.2018




Member State


Spain




Stock or Group of stocks


BET/ATLANT




Species


Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)




Zone


Atlantic Ocean




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


46/TQ120






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-730/18: Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, harassment at work, indemnification, medical data, protection of privacy, psychological harassment








C_2019054EN.01003101.xml










11.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/31






Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament
(Case T-730/18)
(2019/C 54/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: DQ and eleven other applicants (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Declare this application admissible and well-founded;




Accordingly,






—


Annul the implied decision to reject the claim for compensation (‘the contested decision’) brought by the applicants on 13 December 2017 pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;










—


annul, if necessary, the decision of 12 September 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 May 2018 within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;










—


Order compensation for the non-material damage caused by a series of acts and conduct of Parliament which must be the subject of a global assessment and which the applicants estimate, subject to re-assessment, at the sum ex aequo et bono of EUR 192 000










—


Order the Parliament to pay compensatory interest and default interest accrued;










—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants invoke the unlawful acts committed by Parliament in its capacity as employer, in particular a breach of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, infringement of their dignity, breach of their private and family life, breach of their right to the protection of medical confidentiality and breach of their right to working conditions that respect their health, safety and dignity.
The applicants claim that the facts and conduct they had complained of constituted, prima facie, genuine or, at the very least, plausible facts and conduct that give rise to a presumption of psychological harassment against them and conclude that the European Parliament was liable, in particular because of its passivity in the handling of their request for assistance based on Articles 12 and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Case T-411/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to honour and reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality)
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, legal person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019072EN.01001701.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/17






Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case T-411/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to honour and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality))
(2019/C 72/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and G. Étienne, subsequently S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, and finally S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125) and of the subsequent measures giving effect to that decision, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Opinion of the advisory committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 12 December 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.39849(2) BEH Gas — Rapporteur: Lithuania
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, energy grid, energy transport, gas pipeline, gas supply, sanction (EU), storage of hydrocarbons








C_2019121EN.01000401.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/4






Opinion of the advisory committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 12 December 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.39849(2) BEH Gas
Rapporteur: Lithuania
(2019/C 121/04)

1.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on BEH, Bulgargaz and Bulgartransgaz.



2.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringement to be taken into account for the calculation of the basic amount of the fine.



3.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to be taken into account.



4.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.



5.   

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 December 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part (08462/2018 — C8-0417/2018 — 2018/0122(NLE))
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Japan, cooperation agreement (EU), cooperation policy, ratification of an agreement








C_2020388EN.01034101.xml










13.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/341






P8_TA(2018)0506
EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 December 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part (08462/2018 — C8-0417/2018 — 2018/0122(NLE))
(Consent)
(2020/C 388/36)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (08462/2018),










—


having regard to the draft Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Japan, of the other part (08463/2018),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 212(1), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) and Article 218(8), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0417/2018),










—


having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 12 December 2018 (1) on the draft decision,










—


having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0383/2018),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Japan.






(1)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0507.
Case T-253/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU collective figurative mark representing a circle with two arrows — Genuine use of the mark — Revocation in part — Declaration of revocation in part — Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Presentation of the mark on the packaging — Perception of the relevant public)
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, waste recycling








C_2019072EN.01002401.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/24






Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows)
(Case T-253/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU collective figurative mark representing a circle with two arrows - Genuine use of the mark - Revocation in part - Declaration of revocation in part - Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Presentation of the mark on the packaging - Perception of the relevant public))
(2019/C 72/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and N. Ebbecke, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Halston Properties, s. r. o. (Bratislava, Slovakia)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2017 (Case R 1357/2015-5), concerning revocation proceedings between Halston Properties and Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.