do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9236 — Radeberger/Veltins/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 347/03
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beer, beverage industry, economic concentration, foodstuff, logistics, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage, provision of services, wholesale trade








C_2020347EN.01000301.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9236 — Radeberger/Veltins/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 347/03)
On 20 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 German language 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 32019M9236. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-114/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019213EN.01003901.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/39






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Pavel v EUIPO — bugatti (B)
(Case T-114/19)
(2019/C 213/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dan-Gabriel Pavel (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: E. Nedelcu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bugatti GmbH (Herford, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark B — European Union trade mark No 13 545 181

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 in related Cases R 49/2018-1 and R 85/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and maintain the trade mark EUTM-013545181 validly registered as it was registered on 05/05/2016 for all the goods and services;










—


order EUIPO to pay the judicial costs.





Pleas in law







—


Inapplicability of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Absence of proof concerning the breach of the public interest.
Case T-119/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Mutondo v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01009801.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/98






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Mutondo v Council
(Case T-119/19)
(2019/C 139/99)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) and (b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Case T-112/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kibelisa Ngambasai v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01009301.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/93






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kibelisa Ngambasai v Council
(Case T-112/19)
(2019/C 139/93)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Roger Kibelisa Ngambasai (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Case T-116/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kande Mupompa v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01009601.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/96






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kande Mupompa v Council
(Case T-116/19)
(2019/C 139/96)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Case T-108/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kerry Luxembourg/EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense By Kerry)
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adjuvant, beverage, dental medicine, food additive, foodstuff, fruit, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2019139EN.01009001.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/90






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kerry Luxembourg/EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense By Kerry)
(Case T-108/19)
(2019/C 139/89)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Döhler GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany)

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 TasteSense By Kerry — Application for registration No 15 820 509

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 1179/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


dismiss the opposition brought by Döhler GmbH against the registration of the mark TasteSense By Kerry No. 15 820 509;










—


order EUIPO and Döhler, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-110/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kazembe Musonda v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01009201.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/92






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kazembe Musonda v Council
(Case T-110/19)
(2019/C 139/91)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 20 February 2019 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8436 — General Electric Company/LM Wind Power Holding (Art.14(1) proc.) Rapporteur: ROMANIA2020/C 24/03
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Concentrations
Subjects: economic concentration, mechanical engineering, merger control, sanction (EU), turbine, wind energy








C_2020024EN.01000501.xml










24.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/5






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 20 February 2019 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.8436 — General Electric Company/LM Wind Power Holding (Art.14(1) proc.)
Rapporteur: ROMANIA
(2020/C 24/03)

1.   

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that GE negligently submitted incorrect information in the Form CO in case M.8283 — GE/LM WIND in violation of Article 14(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation (1) and Article 4(1) of the Implementing Regulation (2). One Member State abstains.



2.   

The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on GE pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation.




(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the ‘Merger Regulation’) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the ‘Implementing Regulation’) (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2008 (OJ L 279, 22.10.2008, p. 3) and by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2013 (OJ L 336, 14.12.2013, p. 1).
Case T-103/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Mende Omalanga v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01008401.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/84






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Mende Omalanga v Council
(Case T-103/19)
(2019/C 139/85)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Lambert Mende Omalanga (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, including breach of the obligation to state reasons justifying the measures and ensuring effective judicial protection and breach of the right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the involvement of the applicant in acts impeding a consensual and peaceful solution with a view to holding elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to privacy and the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30) and Article 2b(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) are inapplicable. In that regard, the applicant submits that the legal criterion, as defined in those articles, on which the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue is based, infringes the principle of the foreseeability of Union acts and the principle of proportionality in so far as it confers arbitrary and discretionary power on the Council.
Case T-125/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Clem & Jo Optique v EUIPO — C&A (C&J)
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, electronic device, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious metal, precious stones, precision engineering, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019148EN.01005401.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/54






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Clem & Jo Optique v EUIPO — C&A (C&J)
(Case T-125/19)
(2019/C 148/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Clem & Jo Optique SARL (Cormicy, France) (represented by: N. Hausmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark C&J — Application for registration No 15 912 041

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 in Case R 1252/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

Plea in law







—


The applicant company argues that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks C&A and C&J.
Case T-118/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Amisi Kumba v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01009701.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/97






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Amisi Kumba v Council
(Case T-118/19)
(2019/C 139/98)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Case T-124/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01010201.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/102






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
(Case T-124/19)
(2019/C 139/104)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9167 — Patron Capital/Marriott International/PEH Warsaw Bidco) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: catering industry, economic concentration, hotel industry, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2019075EN.01000101.xml










28.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9167 — Patron Capital/Marriott International/PEH Warsaw Bidco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 75/01)
On 20 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 32019M9167. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-117/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council
Date: 2019-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, arms control, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019139EN.01009602.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/96






Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council
(Case T-117/19)
(2019/C 139/97)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.