do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9380 — Bâloise/Fidea) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance, merger control, pension scheme








C_2019165EN.01003601.xml










14.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/36






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9380 — Bâloise/Fidea)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 165/08)

1.   
On 6 May 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:






—


Bâloise (Luxembourg) Holding S.A. (Luxembourg), controlled by Bâloise Holding AG (‘Bâloise’, Switzerland),










—


Fidea NV (‘Fidea’, Belgium), ultimately controlled by Anbang Insurance Group Company Limited (China).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Bâloise provides prevention, pension, assistance and insurance solutions in Europe,










—


Fidea provides life and non-life insurance products predominantly in Belgium.






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.9380 — Bâloise/Fidea
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-305/19: Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019230EN.01005901.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/59






Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)
(Case T-305/19)
(2019/C 230/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Welmax + sp. z o.o. sp. k. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: M. Machyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valmex Medical Imaging GmbH (Augsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘welmax’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 342 786

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2019 in Case R 2245/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety and give judgment on the substance of the case;










—


issue judgment by default in the cases provided for by law;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court, including the costs incurred in respect of legal representation in accordance with the rules laid down by law.





Pleas in law







—


Error of assessment with regard to the facts upon which the decision was based, which consisted in accepting that the decision which, in accordance with the legal provisions, could be the subject of an appeal, was effectively notified to the applicant on 20 July 2018 (allegedly by courier service), whereas the contents of that decision were notified to the applicant on 21 September 2018, after prior correspondence by email and a request to that effect had been submitted by the applicant to an agent of EUIPO;










—


Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 23(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9341 — First State Investment International/Iren Mercato/OLT Offshore LNG Toscana) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, gas supply, investment company, merger control








C_2019174EN.01000102.xml










21.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 174/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9341 — First State Investment International/Iren Mercato/OLT Offshore LNG Toscana)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 174/02)
On 14 May 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 32019M9341. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product








C_2019165EN.01000501.xml










14.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/5






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2019/C 165/05)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Monosodium glutamate


Indonesia


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/84 of 21 January 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia
(OJ L 15, 22.1.2015, p. 54)


23.1.2020






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product








C_2019165EN.01000401.xml










14.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/4






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2019/C 165/04)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Monosodium glutamate


The People’s Republic of China


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/83 of 21 January 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
(OJ L 15, 22.1.2015, p. 31)


23.1.2020






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-602/18: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission (Action for annulment — Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) — Reduction of the amount of the grant — Reclassification of the action — Refusal of the applicant — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, admissibility, environmental protection








C_2019230EN.01005301.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/53






Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission
(Case T-602/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) - Reduction of the amount of the grant - Reclassification of the action - Refusal of the applicant - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 230/66)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Enguera (Enguera, Spain) (represented by: J. Palau Navarro, J. Ortiz Ballester and V. Soriano i Piqueras, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 26 July 2018 confirming its position on the reduction of the amount of the grant awarded under grant agreement LIFE10 ENV/ES/000458 and giving notice of the issue of a recovery order for the sum of EUR 113 408,05.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



Ayuntamiento de Enguera shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Case C-55/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2003/88/EC — Articles 3 and 5 — Daily and weekly rest — Article 6 — Maximum weekly working time — Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers at work — Requirement to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured)
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, legal working time, occupational safety, rest period








C_2019255EN.01000901.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/9






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE
(Case C-55/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 3 and 5 - Daily and weekly rest - Article 6 - Maximum weekly working time - Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers at work - Requirement to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured)
(2019/C 255/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO)

Defendant: Deutsche Bank SAE

Interveners: Federación Estatal de Servicios de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FES-UGT), Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT), Confederación Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos (ELA), Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 4(1), Article 11(3) and Article 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State that, according to the interpretation given to it in national case-law, does not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.


(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case T-12/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Triumph — Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical signs — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Similarity between products — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cycle and motorcycle industry, registered trade mark, road safety, sports equipment, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2019230EN.01003501.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/35






Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)
(Case T-12/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Triumph - Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical signs - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 230/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (initially represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, subsequently by P. Ruess, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 (Case R 665/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Triumph Designs and Zweirad-Center Stadler.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);











3.



Orders Triumph Designs Ltd to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.