do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-256/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019103EN.01004001.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/40






Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)
(Case T-256/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SCHUTZ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 103/53)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J.M. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2018 (Case R 661/2017-4) relating to registration of the word sign SCHUTZ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Arezzo Indústria e Comércio, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9269 — ENGIE/BPCE/ENGIE PV Curbans) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, financial institution, gas industry, merger control, power plant, solar energy, wholesale trade








C_2019037EN.01001601.xml










30.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9269 — ENGIE/BPCE/ENGIE PV Curbans)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 37/06)

1.   
On 24 January 2019, 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:






—


Engie S.A. (‘Engie’, France),










—


Mirova Eurofideme 4 (France), belonging to the Banque Populaire Caisse d’Epargne Group (‘BPCE’, France),










—


ENGIE PV Curbans (‘The Target’, France).




Engie and BPCE acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the Target.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Engie is an industrial company active in the fields of gas, electricity and energy services. It is active throughout the entire energy-value chain.










—


BPCE is a French financial institution mainly active in financial services and banking.










—


The Target holds a photovoltaic plant and is active in the generation and wholesale of electricity in France.






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.9269 — ENGIE/BPCE/ENGIE PV Curbans
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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9246 — Daikin Industries/Cool International Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, cold store, economic concentration, heating, merger control








C_2019037EN.01001701.xml










30.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9246 — Daikin Industries/Cool International Holding)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 37/07)

1.   
On 16 January 2019, 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:






—


Daikin Europe N.V. (Belgium), controlled by Daikin Industries, Ltd (Japan),










—


Cool International Holding GmbH (Austria).




Daikin Europe N.V. acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Cool International Holding GmbH.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Daikin Europe N.V. manufactures and supplies heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment, including heat pumps and refrigeration equipment,










—


Cool International Holding GmbH manufactures, through its subsidiaries forming the AHT Group, plug-in display cases for food manufacturers and food retailers.






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.9246 — Daikin Industries/Cool International Holding
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 C-67/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 30 January 2019 — KD v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial proceedings, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2019139EN.01003601.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 30 January 2019 — KD v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
(Case C-67/19)
(2019/C 139/34)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KD

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that it is possible for effective judicial protection to be guaranteed in a Member State even if its courts cannot amend decisions given in asylum procedures but may only annul them and order that a new procedure be conducted?










2.


Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, again in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that legislation of a Member State which lays down a single mandatory time limit of 60 days in total for judicial proceedings in asylum matters, irrespective of any individual circumstances and without regard to the particular features of the case or any potential difficulties in relation to evidence, is compatible with those provisions?






(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9248 — Sumitomo/Mahindra/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agro-industry, consultancy, dairy production, economic concentration, investment company, know-how, merger control, pesticides industry








C_2019050EN.01000101.xml










8.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 50/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9248 — Sumitomo/Mahindra/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 50/01)
On 30 January 2019, 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 32019M9248. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-56/19: Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, legal person, ownership








C_2019139EN.01006101.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/61






Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case T-56/19)
(2019/C 139/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;










—


In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.
The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
Joined Cases C-335/18 and C-336/18: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad, Apelativen sad — Sofia — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AK (C-335/18), EP (C-336/18) (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Article 3(1) — Infringement of the obligation to declare — Article 4(2) — Measure to detain — Article 9(1) — Penalties provided for by national law — National legislation providing that, in addition to the imposition of a penalty of a term of imprisonment or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the amount of the undeclared sum, that sum is to be confiscated by the State — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital movement, confiscation of property, fine, imprisonment, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, seizure of goods








C_2019112EN.01000901.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/9






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad, Apelativen sad — Sofia — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AK (C-335/18), EP (C-336/18)
(Joined Cases C-335/18 and C-336/18) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Article 3(1) - Infringement of the obligation to declare - Article 4(2) - Measure to detain - Article 9(1) - Penalties provided for by national law - National legislation providing that, in addition to the imposition of a penalty of a term of imprisonment or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the amount of the undeclared sum, that sum is to be confiscated by the State - Proportionality))
(2019/C 112/12)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad, Apelativen sad — Sofia

Criminal proceedings against

AK (C-335/18), EP (C-336/18)

Operative part of the order

Articles 4(2) and 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of penalising an infringement of the obligation to declare provided for in Article 3 of that regulation, provides that, in addition to the imposition of a penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the amount of the undeclared sum of cash, that undeclared sum is to be confiscated by the State.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case T-55/19: Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, legal person, ownership








C_2019139EN.01006001.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/60






Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council
(Case T-55/19)
(2019/C 139/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;










—


Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicants, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;










—


In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicants;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicants for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicants’ right to property and their right to respect for their reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicants consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to their reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which they are entitled to compensation.
The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
Case T-149/16: Order of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, award of contract, equal treatment, financial aid, invitation to tender, project of common interest, reduction of gas emissions, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network








C_2019103EN.01004202.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/42






Order of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission
(Case T-149/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility - Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility))
(2019/C 103/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: initially by P. Glazener, then by Y. de Vries and D. Coumans and finally by Y. de Vries and J. de Kok, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case C-587/17 P: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Expenses excluded from financing by the European Union — Unduly paid export refunds — Recovery — Not all judicial remedies were exhausted — No appeal on a point of law following the negative opinion of a lawyer authorised to act before the Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Article 267 TFEU — No reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice — Negligence on the part of a Member State)
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, appeal, export refund, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2019112EN.01000501.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/5






Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission
(Case C-587/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Expenses excluded from financing by the European Union - Unduly paid export refunds - Recovery - Not all judicial remedies were exhausted - No appeal on a point of law following the negative opinion of a lawyer authorised to act before the Cour de cassation (Belgium) - Article 267 TFEU - No reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice - Negligence on the part of a Member State))
(2019/C 112/06)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by E. Grégoire and J. Mariani, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 July 2017, Belgium v Commission (T-287/16, not published, EU:T:2017:531);










2.


Refers Case T-287/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.