do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-11/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — RK v Council (Civil service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Placing official on leave in the interests of the service — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Responsibility)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, rest period, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019103EN.01002301.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/23






Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — RK v Council
(Case T-11/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Placing official on leave in the interests of the service - Equal treatment - Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Responsibility))
(2019/C 103/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RK (represented initially by: L. Levi and A. Tymen and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by A. Troupiotis and J. A. Steele, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the undated decision of the Council to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, in so far as necessary, of the decision of 27 September 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant and, secondly, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders RK to bear 80 % of her own costs.










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and 20 % of the costs incurred by RK.










4.


Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9226 — CommScope / ARRIS) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2019049EN.01002201.xml










7.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/22






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9226 — CommScope / ARRIS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 49/10)

1.   
On 31 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:






—


CommScope Holding Company, Inc. (‘CommScope’, USA), and










—


ARRIS International plc (‘ARRIS’, USA).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CommScope is a global provider of infrastructure solutions for the core, access and edge layers of communications networks, with products such as wireless network infrastructure and fiber optic and copper connectivity solutions.










—


ARRIS provides entertainment, communications, and networking technology products for service providers to deliver media, voice and IP data services to their subscribers.






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.9226 — CommScope / ARRIS
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.
Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2019049EN.01001701.xml










7.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/17






Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(2019/C 49/06)






Member State


Norway




Route concerned


Røros — Oslo v.v.
Sogndal — Oslo v.v.
Førde — Oslo v.v.
Sandane — Oslo v.v.
Sogndal — Bergen v.v.
Sandane — Bergen v.v.
Ørsta-Volda — Bergen v.v.




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


1 April 2020




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the modified public service obligations can be obtained







Ministry of Transport and Communications




PO Box 8010 Dep




N-0030 Oslo




NORWAY




Tel. +47 22249090




Email: postmottak@sd.dep.no




Internet: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud
Case T-73/19: Action brought on 7 February 2019 — Bergslagernas Järnvaru v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood splitting tools)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, hand tool, wood industry








C_2019122EN.01002501.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/25






Action brought on 7 February 2019 — Bergslagernas Järnvaru v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood splitting tools)
(Case T-73/19)
(2019/C 122/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag (Saltsjö-Boo, Sweden) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, V. Dalichau and B. Breitinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen GmbH (Ichenhausen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 289 243-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 in Case R 1455/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alternatively, amend the contested decision and rule that the appeal is justified;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Case T-549/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council (Civil service — Officials — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Vacancy notice — Rejection of an application — Appointment of another candidate — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of non-discrimination)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, appointment of staff, competition (EU), equal treatment, information profession, job vacancy








C_2019103EN.01003001.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/30






Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council
(Case T-549/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Vacancy notice - Rejection of an application - Appointment of another candidate - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of non-discrimination))
(2019/C 103/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Frederik Duym (Oostende, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the advisory selection board, communicated to the applicant by email of 7 October 2016, rejecting his application in the context of the selection procedure for the Head of the Dutch Language Unit for the Council’s Translation Service, as well as the subsequent decision of the appointing authority of the Council of 20 December 2016 to appoint Ms A. to the post.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Frederik Duym to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019049EN.01002101.xml










7.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 49/09)

1.   
On 30 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:






—


Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (USA),










—


Asco Industries N.V., Asco Management NV and Immobiliere Asco NV, through the holding company S.R.I.F. NV (Belgium).




Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (‘Spirit’) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Asco Industries N.V., Asco Management NV and Immobiliere Asco NV, through the holding company S.R.I.F. NV (‘Asco’).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.
The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 17 September 2018, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 25 October 2018.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Spirit designs, manufactures and sells aerostructures for commercial and military aircraft,










—


Asco is active in machining, treatment and assembly of hard metal, steel and aluminium alloys, composites and the sale of components and sub-components for the aerostructures of commercial aircraft and military aircraft.






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.



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.8948 — Spirit/Asco
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’).
Case T-74/19: Action brought on 7 February 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business administration, business management, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019112EN.01004702.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/47






Action brought on 7 February 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)
(Case T-74/19)
(2019/C 112/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Boot Limited (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

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 figurative mark DENIM HUNTER — Application for registration No 14 649 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 849/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reverse the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs including cost incurred by the applicant.





Plea in law







—


The Board of Appeal has erred in finding that a risk of confusion exists between the marks.
Case T-766/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting — Ground for invalidity — Earlier Community design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_2019103EN.01003401.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/34






Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp)
(Case T-766/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting - Ground for invalidity - Earlier Community design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
(2019/C 103/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Di-Ka Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 738/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Di-Ka Vertriebs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9261 — CD&amp;R/FHI) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, company buyout, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control








C_2019049EN.01002301.xml










7.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/23






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9261 — CD&R/FHI)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 49/11)

1.   
On 31 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:






—


Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund X, L.P. (Cayman Islands), ultimately controlled by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC (‘CD&R’, United States of America),










—


FH Investments Limited (‘FHI’, Jersey), currently ultimately controlled by Cheadle Developments Limited (British Virgin Islands).




CD&R acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of FHI.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CD&R: a private equity investment firm focussing on management buyouts, strategic minority equity investments and other strategic investments,
—   for FHI: holds businesses active in the operation of restaurants, delis and cafes as well as the provision of catering and hospitality services.


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.9261 — CD&R/FHI
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 T-287/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — SWEMAC Medical Appliances (SWEMAC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SWEMAC — Earlier national company name or trade name SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, research and development, trade-mark law








C_2019103EN.01002701.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/27






Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — SWEMAC Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)
(Case T-287/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SWEMAC - Earlier national company name or trade name SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))
(2019/C 103/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Swemac Innovation AB (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Nygren, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB (Täby, Sweden) (represented by: P. Jonsell, lawyer)

Re:

Application brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2017 (Case R 3000/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Swemac Innovation and SWEMAC Medical Appliances.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Swemac Innovation AB to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case T-656/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials — Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL — Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, foodstuff, pharmaceutical product, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019103EN.01003301.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/33






Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)
(Case T-656/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 103/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA;










3.


Orders Mr Ludwig Manfred Jacob to bear his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.