do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9293 — Iconex/Hansol Denmark/R+S Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pulp and paper industry








C_2019132EN.01004601.xml










9.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/46






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9293 — Iconex/Hansol Denmark/R+S Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 132/10)

1.   
On 1 April 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Iconex LLC (‘Iconex’, USA),










—


Hansol Denmark ApS and all subsidiaries, including Schades A/S, (‘Hansol Denmark’, Denmark), controlled by Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (‘Hansol Paper’, South Korea),










—


R+S Group GmbH (‘R+S Group’, Germany), controlled by Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (‘Hansol Paper’, South Korea).




Iconex acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Hansol Denmark and R+S Group (together the ‘Target Companies’) by way of purchase of shares.
The concentration has been referred to the Commission by the Bundeskartellamt pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation. The referral was subsequently joined by the French Republic.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Iconex: conversion and supply of lightweight thermal paper (‘LWTP’) for various end-products including receipt paper rolls, printer consumables and self-adhesive labels. Iconex supplies converted rolls and converted labels to a wide variety of industries,
—   for Hansol Denmark: conversion and supply of LWTP for various end-products including receipt paper rolls, and self-adhesive labels. Hansol Denmark supplies converted rolls and converted labels to a wide variety of industries,
—   for R+S Group: conversion and supply of LWTP for receipt and ticket applications, and self-adhesive labels. R+S Group supplies converted rolls and converted labels to a wide variety of industries.


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.9293 — Iconex/Hansol Denmark/R+S Group
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-233/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Infineon Technologies Dresden v Commission
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2019213EN.01005201.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/52






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Infineon Technologies Dresden v Commission
(Case T-233/19)
(2019/C 213/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision, notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1), of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 of the Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (Regulation on electricity network charges, ‘the StromNEV’); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on one plea in law, arguing that the contested decision is unlawful because the exemption from the network charges under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU.
In this regard, the applicant first argues that the exemption from network charges granted on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV was not granted through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU but was financed through German electricity grid operators which are organised under private law and are not attributable to the State. Neither does the effect of the disputed surcharge equate to a levy on electricity consumption in Germany. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany has no control over the transmission system operators which are entrusted with the management of these resources.
It is further claimed that the exemption from network charges on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV differs in significant aspects from the underlying circumstances in Cases C-206/06, Essent Netwerk Noord and Others and C-262/12, Vent De Colère!. The disputed case is comparable, however, with the surcharge in Case C-405/16 P, Germany v Commission, and therefore not classifiable as aid.
Notice for the attention of the persons to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/562 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/560 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran apply
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2019132EN.01000101.xml










9.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 132/1






Notice for the attention of the persons to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/562 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/560 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran apply
(2019/C 132/01)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/562 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/560 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should continue be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 December 2019, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:





Council of the European Union




RELEX.1.C




General Secretariat




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 98, 9.4.2019, p. 17.

(3)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 98, 9.4.2019, p. 1.
Case T-234/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Infineon Technologies v Commission
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2019213EN.01005301.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/53






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Infineon Technologies v Commission
(Case T-234/19)
(2019/C 213/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision, notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1), of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 of the Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (Regulation on electricity network charges, ‘the StromNEV’); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on one plea in law, arguing that the contested decision is unlawful because the exemption from the network charges under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU.
In this regard, the applicant first argues that the exemption from network charges granted on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV was not granted through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU but was financed through German electricity grid operators which are organised under private law and are not attributable to the State. Neither does the effect of the disputed surcharge equate to a levy on electricity consumption in Germany. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany has no control over the transmission system operators which are entrusted with the management of these resources.
It is further claimed that the exemption from network charges on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV differs in significant aspects from the underlying circumstances in Cases C-206/06, Essent Netwerk Noord and Others and C-262/12, Vent De Colère!. The disputed case is comparable, however, with the surcharge in Case C-405/16 P, Germany v Commission, and therefore not classifiable as aid.
Case T-239/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2019187EN.01008502.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/85






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO)
(Case T-239/19)
(2019/C 187/92)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vinos de Arganza, SL (Toral de los Vados, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, 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 ENCANTO — Application for registration No 15 542 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 in Case R 392/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the opposition;










—


allow the registration of the trade mark applied;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener 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-277/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, gaming, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2019187EN.01007402.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/74






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)
(Case T-277/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 187/79)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 978/2017-4) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PICK & WIN MULTISLOT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case C-290/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovakia) lodged on 9 April 2019 — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer credit, consumer information, contract terms








C_2019213EN.01001401.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovakia) lodged on 9 April 2019 — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
(Case C-290/19)
(2019/C 213/13)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RN

Defendant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

Question referred

Is Article 10[(2)](g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer credit agreement satisfies the requirement laid down in that provision if the annual percentage rate of charge is indicated in the agreement, not as a specific percentage, but as a range between two figures (from — to)?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Case C-288/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Saarlandes (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2019 — QM v Finanzamt Saarbrücken
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, taxpayer, vehicle, vehicle rental, wage earner








C_2019206EN.01003801.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/38






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Saarlandes (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2019 — QM v Finanzamt Saarbrücken
(Case C-288/19)
(2019/C 206/43)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Saarlandes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QM

Defendant: Finanzamt Saarbrücken

Question referred

Is Article 56(2) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘hiring of a means of transport to a non-taxable person’ should also be understood as referring to the provision of a vehicle (company car) forming part of the assets of the business of a taxable person to his staff, if the employee does not provide consideration for it that does not consist in (part of) the work performed by him, and thus does not make any payment, does not use any of his cash remuneration for it, and also does not choose between various benefits offered by the taxable person under an agreement between the parties according to which the entitlement to use the company car is contingent on the forgoing of other benefits?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008 (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 11).
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 9 April 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.39398 — Visa MIF — Rapporteur: Finland
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, European Economic Area, bank charges, control of restrictive practices, electronic money, payment system, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2019299EN.01000301.xml










4.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 299/3






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 9 April 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.39398 — Visa MIF
Rapporteur: Finland
(2019/C 299/04)

1.   

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 26/03/2019 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Visa can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



3.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Visa are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on Visa.



4.   

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Visa, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Visa, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



5.   

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-319/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Aldridge and Others v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — OLAF — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision of the Director of OLAF establishing a one-off reclassification to the next higher grade — Request for an annual reclassification procedure to be launched — Measure of a general nature — Time-limit for bringing an action — Point from which time stars to run — Publication on the intranet — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, admissibility, damages, full-time employment, indemnification, pay scale, promotion, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019187EN.01007101.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/71






Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Aldridge and Others v Commission
(Case T-319/17) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - OLAF - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision of the Director of OLAF establishing a one-off reclassification to the next higher grade - Request for an annual reclassification procedure to be launched - Measure of a general nature - Time-limit for bringing an action - Point from which time stars to run - Publication on the intranet - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 187/75)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Adam Aldridge (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and the 32 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and M. Mensi, then L. Radu Bouyon and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) dated 15 July 2016 rejecting the applicants’ request seeking the implementation of an annual reclassification procedure and of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF dated 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint brought against the decision dated 15 July 2016 and, secondly, the payment of compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Declares that Mr Adam Aldridge and the other members of the temporary staff and former members of the temporary staff of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) whose names are set out in the annex are to bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case T-238/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Wepa Hygieneprodukte and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2019213EN.01005501.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/55






Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Wepa Hygieneprodukte and Others v Commission
(Case T-238/19)
(2019/C 213/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Wepa Hygieneprodukte GmbH (Arnsberg, Germany), Wepa Leuna GmbH (Leuna, Germany), Wepa Papierfabrik Sachsen GmbH (Arnsberg) (represented by: H. Janssen and A. Vallone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission, notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1), of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 of the Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (Regulation on electricity network charges); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on one plea in law, arguing that the exemption from network usage charges is not aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
In that regard, the applicants first claim that the exemption from network usage charges did not entail the use of State or State-granted resources. It is further claimed that the defendant erred when considering that the Paragraph 19 surcharge constitutes a ‘levy’ or ‘parafiscal levy’ imposed by the State on end-users within the meaning of the judgment of 17 July 2008, Essent Netwerk Noord and Others (C-206/06, EU:C:2008:413).
It is further submitted that the baseload consumers were not granted a selective advantage.