do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-571/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — PT v EIB (Civil service — Members of staff of the EIB — Reports procedure — Career evaluation report — 2014 appraisal exercise — Pre-litigation procedure — Admissibility — Right to be heard — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Liability — Non-material damage)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, bonus payment, damages, pay rise, promotion, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2019220EN.01003301.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/33






Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — PT v EIB
(Case T-571/16) (1)

(Civil service - Members of staff of the EIB - Reports procedure - Career evaluation report - 2014 appraisal exercise - Pre-litigation procedure - Admissibility - Right to be heard - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Liability - Non-material damage)
(2019/C 220/42)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: PT (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by G. Nuvoli, E. Raimond, T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, and subsequently by G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, B. Wägenbaur, lawyers, and J. Currall, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, in the first place, annulment of: (i) the EIB decision establishing the definitive version of the applicant’s staff report for the 2014 appraisal exercise; (ii) the applicant’s appraisal report for the 2014 appraisal exercise; (iii) the EIB decisions, for 2015, neither to promote him, grant him an individual bonus nor increase his salary by 1.20% and; in the second place, compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls PT’s appraisal report for the 2014 appraisal exercise;











2.



Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay PT the sum of EUR 2 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with default interest from the date of delivery of the present judgment at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points;











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











4.



Orders the EIB to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-145/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-57/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark WEIN FÜR PROFIS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Misleading character — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, beverage industry, catering industry, condiment, furniture industry, miscellaneous industries, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019220EN.01003802.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/38






Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)
(Case T-57/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark WEIN FÜR PROFIS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 220/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 502/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WEIN FÜR PROFIS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, leather, textile product








C_2019157EN.01001201.xml










8.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/12






Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2019/C 157/04)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 211, the following Explanatory notes to subheadings ‘4202 91 to 4202 99 Other’ are inserted:








‘4202 91 to 4202 99




Other

These subheadings include so-called “writing cases” (see also the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes to heading 4202, paragraph 4, which includes “writing-cases” as an example of “similar containers” covered by the second part of heading 4202).
Writing cases are typically reinforced and designed for prolonged use. They usually have one or more pockets and loops to hold a notepad, papers, writing instruments and supplies etc.
Writing cases may be closed with a zip all round or by means of an elastic band, a closing buckle or a flap with a snap fastener. The presence and type of a closing device is however not a decisive criterion for classification of writing cases under heading 4202. Writing cases without a closing device are also to be classified under this heading.
Examples of writing cases of subheadings 4202 91 to 4202 99 are shown below:







Figure 1


Figure 2


Figure 3
















’










(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.
Case T-325/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a pink bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, glass, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019230EN.01004201.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/42






Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)
(Case T-325/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a pink bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2019/C 230/52)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy) (represented by: R. Galli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 1037/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VI.TO. and Mr Bottega.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case T-254/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — AlpaSuri v Commission (Interlocutory proceedings — Import of alpacas — Application for interim measures — No urgency)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Canada, fur-bearing animal, import (EU), originating product, transport of animals








C_2019246EN.01002601.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/26






Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — AlpaSuri v Commission
(Case T-254/19 R)
(Interlocutory proceedings - Import of alpacas - Application for interim measures - No urgency)
(2019/C 246/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: AlpaSuri GbR Barbara Bruns & Wolfgang Stamp (Winsen, Germany) (represented by: U. Schrömbges, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking interim measures authorising the import of alpacas into the territory of the European Union from Canada.

Operative part of the order







1.



The application for interim measures is dismissed.











2.



The costs are reserved.
Case C-369/19 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2019 by José-Ramón Herrero Torres against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2019 in Case T 326/18 Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law, wholesale selling








C_2019312EN.01000302.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/3






Appeal brought on 8 May 2019 by José-Ramón Herrero Torres against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2019 in Case T 326/18 Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)
(Case C-369/19 P)
(2019/C 312/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: José-Ramón Herrero Torres (represented by J. Donoso Romero, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and DZ Licores S.L.U.
By order of 15 July 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered José-Ramón Herrero Torres to bear his own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9375 — Clearlake/Insight/Appriss) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information analysis, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2019157EN.01001501.xml










8.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/15






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9375 — Clearlake/Insight/Appriss)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 157/06)

1.   
On 29 April 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:






—


Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. (‘Clearlake’) (USA),










—


Insight Venture Management LLC (‘Insight’) (USA),










—


Appriss Holdings, Inc. (‘Appriss’) (USA), controlled by Alert Holdings Company, Inc. (‘Alert’) (USA).




Clearlake and Insight acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Appriss.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Clearlake: a private investment firm whose core target sectors are software and technology-enabled services, industrials and energy, and consumer,
—   for Insight: a leading global venture capital and private equity firm investing in high-growth technology and software companies,
—   for Appriss: a provider of technology and data analytics solutions to governments and companies in three different sectors: safety, health and retail,
—   for Alert: a holding company.


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.9375 — Clearlake/Insight/Appriss
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-324/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a golden bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019230EN.01004101.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/41






Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle)
(Case T-324/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a golden bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2019/C 230/51)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and A. Folliard Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy) (represented by: R. Galli, lawyer

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 1036/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VI.TO. and Mr Bottega.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case C-161/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4 — Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex — Indirect discrimination — Part-time work — Calculation of retirement pension)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, pension scheme, sexual discrimination, social security legislation, temporary employment








C_2019230EN.01001301.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/13






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
(Case C-161/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex - Indirect discrimination - Part-time work - Calculation of retirement pension)
(2019/C 230/15)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Violeta Villar Láiz

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the amount of retirement pension based on contributions of a part-time worker is to be calculated by multiplying a basic amount, established from the remuneration actually received and contributions actually paid, by a percentage which relates to the length of the period of contribution, that period being itself modified, by a reduction factor equal to the ratio of the time of part-time work actually carried out to the time of work carried out by a comparable full-time worker, and increased by the application of a factor of 1.5, to the extent that that legislation places at a particular disadvantage workers who are women as compared with workers who are men.


(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9364 — Stoa/InfraVia II Invest/SBI Crypto Investment/Tiger Infrastructure Europe/Etix Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: computer centre, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2019157EN.01001301.xml










8.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/13






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9364 — Stoa/InfraVia II Invest/SBI Crypto Investment/Tiger Infrastructure Europe/Etix Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 157/05)

1.   
On 26 April 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:






—


Stoa SA (‘Stoa’, France), controlled by Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (‘CDC’, France),










—


InfraVia II Invest SA (‘InfraVia’, Luxembourg), controlled by InfraVia Capital Partners SAS (‘InfraVia Capital Partners’, France),










—


SBI Crypto Investment Co. Ltd (‘SBI’, Japan), controlled by SBI Holdings, Inc. (Japan),










—


Tiger Infrastructure Europe SARL (‘Tiger’, Luxembourg), controlled by Tiger Infrastructure Partners Fund LP (USA),










—


Etix Group SA (‘Etix’, Luxembourg).




Stoa, InfraVia, SBI and Tiger acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Etix.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares by Stoa.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Stoa: investment company,
—   for Etix: provision of data centre services in Europe, Africa, Latin America and South-East Asia.


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.9364 — Stoa/InfraVia II Invest/SBI Crypto Investment/Tiger Infrastructure Europe/Etix 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 +32 229-64301




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.