do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-105/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Manipulation of the Euribor interbank reference rates — Exchange of confidential information — Restriction of competition by object — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Basic amount — Value of sales — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Euribor, cartel, confidentiality, control of restrictive practices, euro, exchange of information, interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2019413EN.01004101.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/41






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission
(Case T-105/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Manipulation of the Euribor interbank reference rates - Exchange of confidential information - Restriction of competition by object - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Basic amount - Value of sales - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 413/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: HSBC Holdings plc (London, United Kingdom), HSBC Bank plc (London), HSBC France (Paris, France) (represented by: K. Bacon QC, D. Bailey, Barrister, M. Simpson, Solicitor, and Y. Anselin and C. Angeli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, B. Mongin and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents, and B. Lask, Barrister)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives) and, second, a variation of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD));











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc and HSBC France to bear their own costs;











4.



Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9475 — TDR/BCA) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services, sale, used goods, vehicle








C_2019320EN.01000801.xml










24.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9475 — TDR/BCA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 320/05)

1.   
On 17 September 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:






—


TDR Capital LLP (‘TDR’, UK),










—


BCA Marketplace plc (‘BCA’, UK).




TDR acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of BCA by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for TDR: the investment of private equity in a variety of sectors including motor fuels retail, gyms and health clubs, conveyor car washes, fleet leasing and management, vacant property services, modular construction, pubs and restaurants, debt purchasing, logistic pallet return, coastal transport, life insurance and apparel and homeware products,
—   for BCA: the provision of vehicle remarketing services, i.e. the provision of services to facilitate a sale between buyers and sellers of used vehicles.


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.9475 — TDR/BCA
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’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9501 — I Squared Capital Advisors/PEMA) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, economic concentration, hire purchase, investment company, large vehicle, merger control








C_2019320EN.01000401.xml










24.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9501 — I Squared Capital Advisors/PEMA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 320/03)

1.   
On 13 September 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:






—


I Squared Capital Advisors, LLC (‘I Squared’, USA),










—


PEMA GmbH and its subsidiaries (‘PEMA’, Germany), currently owned by Société Générale S.A (France).




I Squared acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of PEMA.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for I Squared: an independent global infrastructure investment manager focusing on energy, utilities, telecom and transport in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Through TIP Trailer Services, I Squared is active in the operating leasing of heavy trailers and the provision of integrated services in Europe and Canada,
—   for PEMA: an operating leasing provider of heavy trucks and trailers in Europe.


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.9501 — I Squared Capital Advisors/PEMA
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-746/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jump) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate — Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Avoidable costs — Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01005301.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/53






Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jump)
(Case T-746/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate - Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Avoidable costs - Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
(2019/C 413/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber and A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by E. Markakis and D. Walicka, and subsequently by E. Markakis, A. Söder and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Petersenn, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 (Case R 2236/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Beats Electronics and TrekStor.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action and the cross-claim.











2.



TrekStor Ltd and Beats Electronics LLC shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).











3.



TrekStor and Beats Electronics shall each pay to the Court the sum of EUR 2 500 under Article 139(a) of its Rules of Procedure.







(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Case T-39/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — VF v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal report of the applicant — Annual salary and bonus review — Refusal to convert a fixed-term employment contract into a contract for an indefinite period — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, full-time employment, remuneration of work, servant (EU), staff assessment, temporary employment, work contract








C_2019413EN.01004601.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/46






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — VF v ECB
(Case T-39/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Appraisal report of the applicant - Annual salary and bonus review - Refusal to convert a fixed-term employment contract into a contract for an indefinite period - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration)
(2019/C 413/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and D. Camilleri Podestà, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union essentially seeking, first, the annulment of the decision regarding the annual salary and bonus review for 2016 and the decision not to convert the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract into a contract for an indefinite period and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have sustained as a result of those measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders VF to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case C-714/19 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2019 by Ramón Guiral Broto against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-773/17 Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, catering industry, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020045EN.01001401.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/14






Appeal brought on 24 September 2019 by Ramón Guiral Broto against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-773/17 Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
(Case C-714/19 P)
(2020/C 45/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Ramón Guiral Broto (represented by: A. Sirimarco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Café del Mar, SC, José Les Viamonte and Carlos Andrea González
By order of 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs.
Case T-507/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — France v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenses incurred by France under the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) — Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas (financial years 2013 — 2016) — Flat-rate financial correction)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, Guadeloupe, Martinique, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, peripheral region, tropical fruit








C_2019413EN.01005101.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/51






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — France v Commission
(Case T-507/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenses incurred by France under the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) - Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas (financial years 2013 — 2016) - Flat-rate financial correction)
(2019/C 413/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, S. Horrenberger, A.-L. Desjonquères, A. Alidière and C. Mosser, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29) in so far as it applies to the French Republic a financial correction of 5 %, amounting to a total sum of EUR 1 945 435,39, as regards the measures entitled ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the ground of ‘[i]naccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013 — 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Luxembourg — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery — Tax ruling — Advantage — Arm’s length principle — Selectivity — Presumption — Restriction of competition — Recovery)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, motor vehicle industry, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition, tax relief








C_2019413EN.01003901.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/39






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
(Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Luxembourg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax ruling - Advantage - Arm’s length principle - Selectivity - Presumption - Restriction of competition - Recovery)
(2019/C 413/46)
Languages of the case: French and English

Parties


Applicant in Case T-755/15: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented initially by: D. Holderer and T. Uri, subsequently by T. Uri, acting as Agents, and initially by D. Waelbroeck, S. Naudin and A. Steichen, subsequently by D. Waelbroeck and A. Steichen, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-759/15: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Rodríguez, Solicitor, G. Maisto and M. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Ireland (represented, in Case T-755/15, initially by: E. Creedon, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, subsequently by G. Hodge, M. Browne and A. Joyce, and finally by A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by P. Gallagher and M. Collins, Senior Counsel, B. Doherty and S. Kingston, Barristers, and, in Case T-759/15, initially by E. Creedon, G. Hodge, K. Duggan and A. Joyce, subsequently by G. Hodge, K. Duggan, M. Browne and A. Joyce, and finally by A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by M. Collins and P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, S. Kingston and B. Doherty, Barristers)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat (OJ 2016 L 351, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Joins Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15 for the purposes of the judgment;











2.



Dismisses the actions;











3.



Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-755/15;











4.



Orders Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-759/15;











5.



Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-68/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v EUIPO (Shape of an ellipsoidal bottle) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, glass, packaged product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01004701.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/47






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v EUIPO (Shape of an ellipsoidal bottle)
(Case T-68/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 413/55)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek, M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Case R 413/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case T-112/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink) (Plant varieties — Nullity proceedings — Cripps Pink apple variety – Articles 10 and 116 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Novelty — Derogative grace period — Definition of exploitation of the variety — Commercial evaluation — Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 — Late submission of evidence before the Board of Appeal — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2019-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: evidence, pip fruit, plant variety right








C_2019423EN.01003401.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/34






Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink)
(Case T-112/18) (1)

(Plant varieties - Nullity proceedings - Cripps Pink apple variety – Articles 10 and 116 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Novelty - Derogative grace period - Definition of exploitation of the variety - Commercial evaluation - Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 - Late submission of evidence before the Board of Appeal - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
(2019/C 423/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pink Lady America LLC (Yakima, Washington, United States)) (represented by: initially by R. Manno and S. Travaglio, and subsequently by R. Manno, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and M. Garcia Monco-Fuente Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO and intervener before the General Court: Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) (South Perth, Australia) (represented by: T. Bouvet and L. Romestant, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 14 September 2017 (Case A 007/2016), relating to nullity proceedings between the WAAA and Pink Lady America LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Pink Lady America LLC to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.