do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-762/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers — Infringement by object — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, disc drive, international cartel, optical medium, right to justice, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2019305EN.01003301.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/33






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission
(Case T-762/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Infringement by object - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
(2019/C 305/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) and Sony Electronics (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Farley, A. Biolan, C. Giolito, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, and subsequently by M. Farley, F. van Schaik, L. Wildpanner and A. Dawes, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Joint statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: EU office or agency, employment service, free movement of workers, labour mobility, operation of the Institutions, single market








L_2019188EN.01013101.xml










12.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 188/131







Joint statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission note that the process for selecting the location of the seat of the European Labour Authority (ELA) was not concluded at the time of the adoption of its founding Regulation (1).
Recalling the commitment to sincere and transparent cooperation and recalling the Treaties, the three Institutions acknowledge the value of exchange of information from the initial stages of the process for the selection of the seat of the ELA.
Such early exchange of information would make it easier for the three Institutions to exercise their rights according to the Treaties through the related procedures.
The European Parliament and the Council take note of the Commission's intention to take any appropriate steps in order for the founding Regulation to provide for a provision on the location of the seat of the ELA, and to ensure that the ELA operates autonomously in line with that Regulation.


(1)  
            OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 21.
Case T-276/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviário Tropical (Tropical) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Tropical — Earlier national word mark TROPICAL — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the goods — Likelihood of confusion — Coexistence of the marks)
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, aquaculture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020010EN.01003001.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/30






Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviário Tropical (Tropical)
(Case T-276/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Tropical - Earlier national word mark TROPICAL - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the goods - Likelihood of confusion - Coexistence of the marks)
(2020/C 10/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Aviário Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 (Case R 2125/2016 1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aviário Tropical and Mr Ogrodnik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 February 2017 (Case R 2125/2016-1) in so far as, in that decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of ‘products and preparations for the breeding of birds, reptiles, amphibians’ in Class 31 and ‘veterinary, therapeutic, disinfecting and sanitary products and preparations for use in terraristics’ in Class 5;











2.



Dismisses the appeal brought by Aviário Tropical, SA, against the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 15 July 2013 (No 6029C) in so far as that appeal seeks the annulment of the trade mark TROPICAL in respect of ‘products and preparations for the breeding of birds, reptiles, amphibians’ in Class 31 and ‘veterinary, therapeutic, disinfecting and sanitary products and preparations for use in terraristics’ in Class 5;











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











4.



Orders Mr Ogrodnik to pay half of EUIPO’s costs and half of his own costs;











5.



Orders EUIPO to pay half of Mr Ogrodnik’s costs and half of its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case C-537/19: Action brought on 12 July 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Vienna, award of contract, equal treatment, property leasing, services contract, tendering








C_2019295EN.01001201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/12






Action brought on 12 July 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-537/19)
(2019/C 295/16)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, M. Noll-Ehlers and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, in so far as Stadt Wien-Wiener Wohnen directly awarded the contract of 25 February 2012 in respect of the office building on Guglstrasse 2-4 in Vienna without any competitive tendering procedure and corresponding contract notice, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 28 and 35(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC; (1)











—


order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that in 2012 the City of Vienna, as a public contracting authority, concluded with a private contractor a long-term lease in respect of an office building before it was constructed. The City of Vienna thereby exercised decisive influence over the planning of the works which far exceeds the usual requirements of a lessee in relation to newly constructed premises.
That lease constitutes a public works contract, as is clear from the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice on the leasing of unfinished building projects by contracting authorities. Since there was no competitive tendering procedure, the award infringes Articles 2, 28 and 35(2) of Directive 2004/18. That infringement persists so long as the lease, which cannot properly be terminated before 2040, continues to exist.


(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).