do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-648/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019– Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission
Date: 2019-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Africa, Europe, Middle East, State aid, control of State aid, infringement procedure (EU), patents licence, tax collection








C_2019413EN.01005701.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/57






Action brought on 26 September 2019– Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-648/19)
(2019/C 413/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands) and Converse Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Martens and D. Colgan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul, in its entirety, the contested opening Decision, i.e. the Commission Decision of 10 January 2019 to initiate the formal investigation procedure in case State aid SA.51284 (2018/NN) – Netherlands – Possible State aid in favour of Nike (1); and










—


order the Commission to pay all costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 1(d), 1(e) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 (2) laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, the principle of good administration and the principle of equal treatment, by erring in law in the preliminary assessment of the aid character of the contested measures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107(1), 108(2), 296(2) TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, by not providing sufficient reasons for finding that the contested measures fulfil all elements of State aid, especially why they should be regarded as selective.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 296(2) TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, by prematurely opening a formal investigation and providing insufficient reasoning for the existence of State aid where there were no difficulties to continue the preliminary investigation.






(1)  OJ 2019, C 226, p.31


(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p.9)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9525 — EPE/OCH/Omnicare) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 332/04
Date: 2019-09-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health service, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical product, wholesale trade








C_2019332EN.01000401.xml










3.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9525 — EPE/OCH/Omnicare)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 332/04)
On 26 September 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 32019M9525. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-549/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate v Commission (Application for interim measures — Orphan medicinal product — Application to suspend operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2019-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: application of the law, drug surveillance, market approval, orphan drug








C_2020019EN.01005301.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/53






Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate v Commission
(Case T-549/19 R)
(Application for interim measures - Orphan medicinal product - Application to suspend operation of a measure - No urgency)
(2020/C 19/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate mbH (Wedel, Germany) (represented by: P. von Czettritz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, L. Haasbeek and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU to suspend the operation of Article 5 of Commission Implementing Decision C (2019) 4858 final of 20 June 2019 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Trecondi-treosulfan’, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

The Court orders:






1.



The application for interim measures is refused.











2.



Costs are reserved.