do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9257 — NEC/KMD) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, public sector








C_2019057EN.01000302.xml










13.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9257 — NEC/KMD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 57/06)
On 6 February 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 32019M9257. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Joined Cases T-101/14 and T-610/15: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — British Aggregates v Commission
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Northern Ireland, State aid, United Kingdom, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, equal treatment, raw material, tax exemption








C_2019122EN.01003101.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/31






Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — British Aggregates v Commission
(Joined Cases T-101/14 and T-610/15) (1)

(2019/C 122/35)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
Case C-85/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2019 — Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v RK
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, collective agreement, equal treatment, gender equality, part-time employment, promotion, remuneration of work, sexual discrimination, working time








C_2019164EN.01001801.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2019 — Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v RK
(Case C-85/19)
(2019/C 164/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Respondent: RK

Question referred

Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)? (2)



(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Case T-580/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Classification — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Premature complaint — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility — Autonomy of remedies — Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave — Obligation to state reasons — Successive fixed-term contracts — Abuse of rights — Right to be heard — Liability)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, indemnification, maternity leave, pay scale, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2019103EN.01003101.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/31






Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament
(Case T-580/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility - Autonomy of remedies - Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave - Obligation to state reasons - Successive fixed-term contracts - Abuse of rights - Right to be heard - Liability))
(2019/C 103/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the European Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant in function group II, at grade 4, step 1, under the contract as a member of the contract staff signed on 12 May 2016 and which expired on 11 November 2016 and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered on account of his classification and the non-renewal of his contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Kevin Karp to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Case T-70/19: Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (LA PASSIATA)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019122EN.01002301.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/23






Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (LA PASSIATA)
(Case T-70/19)
(2019/C 122/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LA PASSIATA — Application for registration No 14 593 131

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2018 in Case R 928/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-69/19: Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aromatic plant, foodstuff, household article, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, salt, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019112EN.01004701.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/47






Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)
(Case T-69/19)
(2019/C 112/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline — Application for registration No 17 126 517

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2018 in Case R 412/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow EU trade mark application No 17 126 517, thus far rejected, to proceed to registration;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-95/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — Agenzia delle Dogane v Silcompa SpA
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF, claim, customs duties, excise duty, free movement of goods, tax collection








C_2019182EN.01001101.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — Agenzia delle Dogane v Silcompa SpA
(Case C-95/19)
(2019/C 182/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agenzia delle Dogane

Respondent and cross-appellant: Silcompa SpA

Question referred

Is Article 12(3) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (1), as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC (2), read in conjunction with Article 20 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (3), to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings brought against enforcement measures for the collection of excise duty, the court may examine (and if so within what limits) the question of the place (of actual release for consumption) where the irregularity or offence was actually committed where, as in the present case, the same claim, based on the same export transactions, is made, independently, against the taxable person by both the applicant State and the requested State and, in the requested State, proceedings are pending, contemporaneously, both in respect of the national claim and the action for the collection of duties for the other State, and would the court’s finding in that regard invalidate the request for assistance and consequently all the enforcement measures?


(1)  Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18).

(2)  Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17).

(3)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9219 — Blackstone/Sretaw/Beauparc) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, waste recycling








C_2019047EN.01001201.xml










6.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9219 — Blackstone/Sretaw/Beauparc)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 47/06)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


The Blackstone Group L.P. (‘Blackstone’, USA),










—


Sretaw 2 Limited (‘Sretaw’, Ireland),










—


Beauparc Utilities Holdings Limited (‘Beauparc’, Ireland).




Blackstone and Sretaw acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation, joint control over Beauparc.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Blackstone is a global alternative asset manager headquartered in the US,










—


Sretaw currently owns 100 % of Beauparc,










—


Beauparc operates primarily in the waste recycling and utilities sectors in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.






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.9219 — Blackstone/Sretaw/Beauparc
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.
Case T-71/19: Action brought on 6 February 2019 — BMC v Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, air safety, award of contract, engine, helicopter, innovation, project evaluation, research and development, tendering








C_2019122EN.01002401.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/24






Action brought on 6 February 2019 — BMC v Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
(Case T-71/19)
(2019/C 122/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: BMC Srl (Medicina, Italy) (represented by: S. Dindo and L. Picotti, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the Clean Sky 2 Unit of 6 December 2018 confirming the decision of 10 October 2018 by which Clean Sky 2 found that proposal No 831874, concerning the call for proposals H2020-CS2-CFP08-2018-01 — relating to a suction system for engines and systems for protection against the icing of rotor blades — was not eligible for financing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted its proposal for participation in call for proposals H2020-CS2-CFP08-2018-01 (Clean Sky 2 Call for proposals 08), managed by Clean Sky 2 (Programme Clean Sky 2), which has as its objective the development of a suction system for engines and systems for protection against the icing of rotor blades (integrating a removable anti-ice system).
The applicant claims to be the only business in the world, currently, to have found a solution to a flight safety problem for helicopters in icy conditions.
The applicant points out in this regard that, even though the call for proposals concerned specifically a request to put forward proposals for the development of the system for protection against icing, Clean Sky 2 (and therefore the unit entrusted with the management of the call) found that the applicant’s proposal did not meet the threshold set out by the call.
That decision, it is submitted, is vitiated by infringement of the procedural rules on the following grounds:






1.


Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 entitled ‘Selection and award criteria’ (including where an intermediate score has been given in comparison with those laid down by the provision) and the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










2.


The existence in the present case of a misuse of powers in that an (intermediate) score was applied to each of the three criteria; the scale of scores for the evaluation of the proposals submitted made no provision for such a score.










3.


The existence in the present case of a misuse of powers by reason of the failure to investigate adequately and distortion of the facts, in particular in that the objectives pursued by the measure at issue are not met.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9221 — CMA CGM/CEVA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 130/01
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, economic concentration, land transport, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, port traffic, provision of services, storage








C_2021130EN.01000101.xml










14.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9221 — CMA CGM/CEVA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 130/01)
On 6 February 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 32019M9221. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-131/17: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Argus Security Projects v EEAS
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: accountant, debt, financial accounting, financial control, right to justice








C_2019122EN.01003201.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/32






Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Argus Security Projects v EEAS
(Case T-131/17) (1)

(2019/C 122/37)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1622 of 29 October 2018 on the non-approval of certain active substances in biocidal products pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 271, 30.10.2018)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: chemical product, market approval, marketing standard, plant health control, plant health product








L_2019034EN.01001001.xml










6.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 34/10







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1622 of 29 October 2018 on the non-approval of certain active substances in biocidal products pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 271 of 30 October 2018
)


On page 29, in the table of the Annex:
for:











‘939


Active Chlorine: manufactured by the reaction of hypochlorous acid and sodium hypochlorite produced in situ



SK


Mixture


Not available


2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12’





read:











‘939


Active Chlorine: manufactured by the reaction of hypochlorous acid and sodium hypochlorite produced in situ



SK


Mixture


Not available


2, 3, 4, 5’
Corrigendum to the 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) (OJ C 30, 24.1.2019)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, intermediate goods, market approval, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product, solvent








C_2019047EN.01001402.xml










6.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/14






Corrigendum to the 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)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 30 of 24 January 2019
)
(2019/C 47/08)
On page 5, in the first column ‘Reference of the decision’:

for:

‘C(2019)53’,


read:

‘C(2019) 54’.