do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-89/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Lanciano, Ecolan SpA
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, national law, public authorities, public procurement, services contract, shareholding, tendering








C_2019182EN.01000601.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di Lanciano, Ecolan SpA
(Case C-89/19)
(2019/C 182/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Rieco SpA

Respondents: Comune di Lanciano, Ecolan SpA

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law (in particular the principle of free administration by public authorities and the principle that the different rules governing the award of service contracts and the management of services relevant to public authorities must be essentially equivalent) preclude a national law (such as that set out in Article 192(2) of the Italian Public Procurement Code, Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016), which places the in-house award of contracts on a subordinate level to award by means of public tender procedure and establishes it as an exception to the latter, by: (i) permitting contracts to be awarded in house only when there is clear evidence of failure in the relevant market, and (ii) requiring authorities intending to make an award by inter-organisational delegation to provide specific reasons with regard to the benefits for society at large accruing from that form of award?










2.


Does EU law (in particular Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) concerning the in-house award of contracts where similar control is exercised jointly with other authorities) preclude a provision of national law (such as that set out in Article 4(1) of the Consolidated Law concerning companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership — Legislative Decree No 175 of 2016) which prevents a public authority from acquiring a shareholding (in any event one that can guarantee control or power of veto) in a body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings, where that authority intends in any event to acquire subsequently a position of joint control and therefore the possibility of making direct awards to that body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings?






(1)  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 (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Case T-67/19: Action brought on 5 February 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, data processing, information system, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019112EN.01004601.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/46






Action brought on 5 February 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)
(Case T-67/19)
(2019/C 112/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico city, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dokkio, Inc. (San Mateo, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark DOKKIO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 308 971

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2018 in Case R 1187/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision to the extent that it rejects opposition B 2800087;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV;










—


order Dokkio, Inc. to pay the costs incurred by Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-91/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di San Vito Chietino, Ecolan SpA
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, national law, public authorities, public procurement, services contract, shareholding, tendering








C_2019182EN.01000801.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 February 2019 — Rieco SpA v Comune di San Vito Chietino, Ecolan SpA
(Case C-91/19)
(2019/C 182/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Rieco SpA

Respondents: Comune di San Vito Chietino, Ecolan SpA

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law (in particular the principle of free administration by public authorities and the principle that the different rules governing the award of service contracts and the management of services relevant to public authorities must be essentially equivalent) preclude a national law (such as that set out in Article 192(2) of the Italian Public Procurement Code, Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016), which places the in-house award of contracts on a subordinate level to award by means of public tender procedure and establishes it as an exception to the latter, by: (i) permitting contracts to be awarded in house only when there is clear evidence of failure in the relevant market, and (ii) requiring authorities intending to make an award by inter-organisational delegation to provide specific reasons with regard to the benefits for society at large accruing from that form of award?










2.


Does EU law (in particular Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) concerning the in-house award of contracts where similar control is exercised jointly with other authorities) preclude a provision of national law (such as that set out in Article 4(1) of the Consolidated Law concerning companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership — Legislative Decree No 175 of 2016) which prevents a public authority from acquiring a shareholding (in any event one that can guarantee control or power of veto) in a body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings, where that authority intends in any event to acquire subsequently a position of joint control and therefore the possibility of making direct awards to that body in which a number of other public authorities have shareholdings?






(1)  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 (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Case T-88/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019103EN.01003802.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/38






Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)
(Case T-88/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 103/50)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 2063/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ARMONIE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gruppo Armonie SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard








C_2019046EN.01000401.xml










5.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/4






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
)

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 46/04)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2019) 569


29 January 2019


1,2-dichloroethane
EC No. 203-458-1
CAS No. 107-06-2


Microbeads AS, Vestvollvn 30A, N-2019, Skedsmokorset, Norway


REACH/19/12/0


Industrial use of 1,2-dichloroethane as a swelling agent during the sulfonation reaction of crosslinked polystyrene beads in the manufacture of ion exchange resins for purification of radioactive waste


29 January 2031


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9273 — CVC/April) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, insurance company, investment company, merger control, wholesale trade








C_2019046EN.01000901.xml










5.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9273 — CVC/April)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 46/06)

1.   
On 28 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:






—


CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’, Luxembourg),










—


April SA (‘April’, France).




CVC acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the whole of April.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CVC: CVC and its subsidiaries provide investment advice to and/or manage investments on behalf of certain investment funds holding interests in a number of companies active in a variety of industries across different world regions,
—   for April: April is a wholesale insurance broker and insurer active primarily in France whose clients include private individuals, professionals and companies.


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.9273 — CVC/April
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: 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.