do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9247 — MC/Franz Haniel/ELG) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carbon, economic concentration, energy industry, food industry, iron and steel industry, mechanical engineering, merger control, raw chemical industry, waste recycling








C_2019096EN.01000102.xml










13.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9247 — MC/Franz Haniel/ELG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 96/02)
On 28 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 32019M9247. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8773 — LetterOne Holdings/BASF/Wintershall DEA) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, energy transport, extraction of oil, holding company, hydrocarbon, investment company, merger control, petroleum exploration








C_2019107EN.01000101.xml










21.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8773 — LetterOne Holdings/BASF/Wintershall DEA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 107/01)
On 28 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 32019M8773. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-466/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Council of the European Union v Marquis Energy LLC, European Commission, ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 — Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Country-wide dumping margin — Actions for annulment — Non-exporting producer — Locus standi — Direct concern)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United States, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, right of action








C_2019139EN.01000901.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/9






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Council of the European Union v Marquis Energy LLC, European Commission, ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol
(Case C-466/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Country-wide dumping margin - Actions for annulment - Non-exporting producer - Locus standi - Direct concern)
(2019/C 139/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and N. Tuominen, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: Marquis Energy LLC (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocaat, and N. Mizulin and M. Peristeraki, avocats), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, Agents), ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 June 2016, Marquis Energy v Council (T-277/13, not published, EU:T:2016:343);










2.


Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Marquis Energy LLC as inadmissible;










3.


Orders Marquis Energy LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union both in relation to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs both in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.






(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case T-375/18: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Action for annulment and for damages — Institutional law — European Parliament — Work of a delegation outside the European Union — Decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan — List of the persons authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan which did not include the name of the applicant — Period within which an action must be brought — Late submission — Measure not open to challenge — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EP delegation, Member of the European Parliament, indemnification, official visit








C_2019139EN.01005601.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/56






Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament
(Case T-375/18) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Institutional law - European Parliament - Work of a delegation outside the European Union - Decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan - List of the persons authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan which did not include the name of the applicant - Period within which an action must be brought - Late submission - Measure not open to challenge - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 139/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for, primarily, the annulment of the decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan of 20 March 2018, listing the persons who were authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan and, in the alternative, the annulment of two decisions of implied refusal, and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for repair of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that measure.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Parliament.







(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Case T-69/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Ateknea Solutions Catalonia v Commission (Arbitration clause — Contracts concluded within the sixth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) — Reimbursement of costs incurred by the applicant plus default interest — Eligible costs — Contractual liability)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, contractual liability, damages








C_2019139EN.01004301.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/43






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Ateknea Solutions Catalonia v Commission
(Case T-69/16) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Contracts concluded within the sixth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) - Reimbursement of costs incurred by the applicant plus default interest - Eligible costs - Contractual liability)
(2019/C 139/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ateknea Solutions Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruxió Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Grønfeldt and M. Siekierzyńska, and subsequently by M. Siekierzyńska and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicant an amount of EUR 1258 533.89 or, in the alternative, an amount of EUR 1025 845.29.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Ateknea Solutions Catalonia, SA to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
Case T-134/19: Action brought on 28 February 2019 — AM v EIB
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, interest, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019155EN.01004601.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/46






Action brought on 28 February 2019 — AM v EIB
(Case T-134/19)
(2019/C 155/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AM (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;




as a result,






—


annul the decisions of the President of the EIB of 30 June 2017 and 11 December 2017 in so far as they refuse to grant the applicant the geographical mobility allowance provided for in Article 1.4 of the Staff Rules;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President of the EIB dated 20 November 2018 rejecting the findings of the Conciliation Board and confirming the decisions of 30 June 2017 and 11 December 2017;




accordingly,






—


order the defendant to pay the geographical mobility allowance retroactively as of 1 April 2017, that is, at the date the present action was brought, EUR 36 045.6 (EUR 1 567.20 x 23 months);










—


order the defendant to pay the default interest on the geographical mobility allowance payable since 1 April 2017, until full payment, the default interest being set at the interest rate of the European Central Bank, increased by 2 points.





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 Article 1.4 of the Staff Rules and infringement of Articles 1 and 11 of Annex VII to those Rules.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, that of the predictability of the law and that of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, of Article 1.3 of the EIB’s Staff Code of Conduct and of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the ‘reasonable time’ principle.
Case C-505/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SO’BiO ētic’ — EU and national word and figurative marks containing the word element ‘SO…?’ — Opposition by the proprietor — Refusal of registration)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019139EN.01001301.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/13






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Debonair Trading Internacional Lda
(Case C-505/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SO’BiO ētic’ - EU and national word and figurative marks containing the word element ‘SO…?’ - Opposition by the proprietor - Refusal of registration)
(2019/C 139/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Groupe Léa Nature SA (represented by: E. Baud, Avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and D. Botis, Agents), Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by T. Alkin, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Groupe Léa Nature SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda and by The Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Case T-459/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Lotte v EUIPO — Générale Biscuit-Glico France (PEPERO original) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PEPERO original — Earlier national three-dimensional mark — Shape of an oblong biscuit partially covered with chocolate — Declaration of invalidity — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Earlier mark consisting of the shape of the product — Use as a trade mark — No alteration of distinctive character)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, condiment, confectionery product, dairy ice cream, foodstuff, instant product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019139EN.01005201.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/52






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Lotte v EUIPO — Générale Biscuit-Glico France (PEPERO original)
(Case T-459/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PEPERO original - Earlier national three-dimensional mark - Shape of an oblong biscuit partially covered with chocolate - Declaration of invalidity - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Earlier mark consisting of the shape of the product - Use as a trade mark - No alteration of distinctive character)
(2019/C 139/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Lotte Corp. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: G. Ringeisen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Générale Biscuit-Glico France (Clamart, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2018 (Case R 913/2017-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Générale Biscuit-Glico France and Lotte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Lotte Corp. to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Case C-465/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Council of the European Union v Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Association, European Commission, ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 — Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Country-wide dumping margin — Actions for annulment — Associations representing non-exporting producers and traders/blenders — Locus standi — Direct concern — Individual concern)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United States, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, right of action








C_2019139EN.01000801.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/8






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Council of the European Union v Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Association, European Commission, ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol
(Case C-465/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Country-wide dumping margin - Actions for annulment - Associations representing non-exporting producers and traders/blenders - Locus standi - Direct concern - Individual concern)
(2019/C 139/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and N. Tuominen, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Association (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocaat, and N. Mizulin and M. Peristeraki, avocats), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, Agents), ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 June 2016, Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council (T-276/13, EU:T:2016:340), except inasmuch as it dismissed the action brought by Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association in their own right as interested parties in the proceedings;










2.


Dismisses the action for annulment of Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association as inadmissible in so far as they brought that action in their capacity as representatives of the interests of the sampled US bioethanol producers;










3.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the action for annulment of Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association in so far as they brought that action in their capacity as representatives of the interests of the traders/blenders Murex and CHS;










4.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9276 — Sika/Financière Dry Mix Solutions) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019075EN.01000601.xml










28.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9276 — Sika/Financière Dry Mix Solutions)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 75/05)

1.   
On 20 February 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:






—


Sika AG (‘Sika’, Switzerland),










—


Financière Dry Mix Solutions SAS (‘Financière Dry Mix Solutions’, France).




Sika acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Financière Dry Mix Solutions. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Sika: development and production of high-quality concrete admixtures, mortars, sealants and adhesives, damping and reinforcing materials, structural strengthening systems, industrial flooring as well as roofing and waterproofing systems which are used in the building sector and by manufacturing industries,
—   for Financière Dry Mix Solutions: production and commercialisation of mortar products used in the construction industry.


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.9276 — Sika/Financière Dry Mix Solutions
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 C-9/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Detlef Meyn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Directive 2006/126/EC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal to recognise a driving licence issued in another Member State — Right to drive established on the basis of a driving licence)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, driving licence, residence








C_2019139EN.01001801.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/18






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Detlef Meyn
(Case C-9/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal to recognise a driving licence issued in another Member State - Right to drive established on the basis of a driving licence)
(2019/C 139/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

Party in the main proceedings

Detlef Meyn

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence — the holder of which has his normal residence in its territory — which has been issued by another Member State, without a test of fitness to drive, on the basis of a driving licence issued by another Member State, for its part based on the exchange of a driving licence issued by a third country.


(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.