do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9838 – Altor Fund Manager/Eleda/JVAB) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 204/02
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: civil engineering, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020204EN.01000801.xml










18.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/8






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9838 – Altor Fund Manager/Eleda/JVAB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 204/02)
On 11 June 2020, 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 32020M9838. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-260/20 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-383/17, Hansol Paper v Commission
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, economic value, export price, import (EU), originating product, paper, price reduction








C_2020271EN.01003001.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/30






Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-383/17, Hansol Paper v Commission
(Case C-260/20 P)
(2020/C 271/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, and A. Demeneix, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal, reject the application at first instance and order Hansol Paper Co. Ltd to pay the costs;




or, alternatively,






—


refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (1).
The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on three grounds of appeal.
The Commission considers the General Court:






—


distorted the evidence and misinterpreted the legal framework applicable to the data on which the Commission is entitled to rely in order to construct the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic regulation (2);










—


misinterpreted the rules of article 2(1) and (3) of the basic regulation for the determination of the normal value in case of absence of domestic sales; and










—


misinterpreted the rules of article 3 of the basic regulation when defining the undercutting margin in case of exports to the Union through related entities.






(1)  OJ 2017, L 114, p. 3.

(2)  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 (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).
Case T-370/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, absenteeism, disability insurance, incapacity for work, indemnification, interest, pension scheme








C_2020255EN.01003302.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/33






Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB
(Case T-370/20)
(2020/C 255/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KL (represented by L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;




Consequently,






—


annul the EIB’s decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification since 18 February 2019;










—


in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 16 March 2020 confirming the findings of the Conciliation Board and, therefore, the decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019;




Accordingly,






—


order the defendant to make retrospective payment of the invalidity pension in principle from 1 February 2019 onwards;










—


order the defendant to pay default interest on the invalidity pension payable since 1 February 2019 until such time as payment has been made in full, the default interest rate being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points;










—


order the EIB to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 46-1 and 48-1 of the Staff Pension Scheme Regulations and of Article 11(1) and (3) of the administrative provisions, as well as manifest error of assessment.










2.


Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.
Case C-581/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU law — General principles — Article 18 TFEU — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality — Applicability of EU law — Defective breast implants — Insurance against civil liability arising from the production of medical devices — Insurance contract prescribing a geographical limitation on insurance coverage)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, defective product, discrimination on the basis of nationality, insurance company, insurance contract, medical device, producer's liability, third-party insurance








C_2020271EN.01000501.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,
(Case C-581/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU law - General principles - Article 18 TFEU - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality - Applicability of EU law - Defective breast implants - Insurance against civil liability arising from the production of medical devices - Insurance contract prescribing a geographical limitation on insurance coverage)
(2020/C 271/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RB

Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a clause, stipulated in a contract concluded between an insurance company and a manufacturer of medical devices, limiting the geographical extent of the insurance coverage against civil liability arising from those devices to harm that has occurred in the territory of a single Member State, since such a situation does not fall, as EU law currently stands, within the scope of application of EU law.


(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case T-563/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark PERFECT Bar — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character– Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food substitute, food supplement, human nutrition, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01002502.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/25






Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar)
(Case T-563/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PERFECT Bar - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character– Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 262/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J.L. Gracia Albero, R. Seoane Lacayo and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2019 (Case R 372/2019-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign PERFECT Bar as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Orders Perfect Bar LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case T-553/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, food substitute, food supplement, human nutrition, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01003202.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/32






Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)
(Case T-553/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark PERFECT BAR - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 287/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J.L. Gracia Albero, R. Seoane Lacayo and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 (Case R 371/2019-5), relating to the application for registration of the word sign PERFECT BAR as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Orders Perfect Bar LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case T-294/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — EIB staff — Reform of the EIB remuneration and salary progression system — Remuneration simulation tool — Act not open to challenge — Purely confirmatory act — No new and substantial facts — Non-material harm — No causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, access to EU information, data protection, indemnification, pension scheme, personal data, right to justice, wage determination








C_2020262EN.01002401.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/24






Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB
(Case T-294/19) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - EIB staff - Reform of the EIB remuneration and salary progression system - Remuneration simulation tool - Act not open to challenge - Purely confirmatory act - No new and substantial facts - Non-material harm - No causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 262/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and the other appellants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: A. Haines, Barrister)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, J. Klein and J. Krueck, acting as Agents, and P.E. Partsch and T. Evans, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EIB of 31 January 2019 by which the EIB confirmed the decision of the Conciliation Board, which found that the conciliation procedure relating to the applicants’ requests to make available an official printout of the results of the remuneration simulation tool used to calculate the impact of the reforms and of the amicable settlement to compensate for the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the reforms had failed, and, second, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of that decision of 31 January 2019.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Mr Patrick Vanhoudt and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Case C-88/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești — Romania) — Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’ v TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 12(1) — System of strict protection of animal species — Annex IV — Canis lupus (wolf) — Article 16(1) — Natural range — Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus — Public safety)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: derogation from EU law, protected area, protected species, protection of animals, public safety, wolf








C_2020271EN.01001201.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/12






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești — Romania) — Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’ v TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA
(Case C-88/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection of animal species - Annex IV - Canis lupus (wolf) - Article 16(1) - Natural range - Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus - Public safety)
(2020/C 271/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Zărnești

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’

Defendants: TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the capture and relocation of a specimen of an animal species protected under Annex IV to that directive, such as the wolf, on the outskirts of a human settlement area or within such an area, can fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in that provision.
Article 16(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that any form of deliberate capture of specimens of that animal species in the aforementioned circumstances is prohibited in the absence of a derogation granted by the competent national authority on the basis of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Case T-561/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission (Action for annulment — Energy — Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Limit on biofuels and biomass fuels produced from food and feed crops — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 — Definition of raw materials presenting a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk — Palm oil — Standing to bring proceedings — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, biofuel, environmental impact, land use, principle of proportionality, renewable energy, soil protection, vegetable oil








C_2020255EN.01001702.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/17






Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission
(Case T-561/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Energy - Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Limit on biofuels and biomass fuels produced from food and feed crops - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 - Definition of raw materials presenting a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk - Palm oil - Standing to bring proceedings - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 255/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lípidos Santiga, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and Y. Marinova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels (OJ 2019 L 133, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Lípidos Santiga, SA, is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case C-786/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of public health — Internal market — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Advertising — Article 96 — Distribution of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them — Pharmacists excluded from the distribution of free samples of medicinal products — Inapplicability to distribution of free samples of non-prescription medicinal products — Consequences for the Member States)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, advertising, distributor, medicinal product, medicine, pharmacist, physician, public health, single market








C_2020271EN.01000801.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/8






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH
(Case C-786/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of public health - Internal market - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Advertising - Article 96 - Distribution of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them - Pharmacists excluded from the distribution of free samples of medicinal products - Inapplicability to distribution of free samples of non-prescription medicinal products - Consequences for the Member States)
(2020/C 271/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH

Defendant: Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 96(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding pharmaceutical companies from distributing free samples of medicinal products to pharmacists. On the other hand, that provision does not preclude distributing free samples of non-prescription medicinal products to pharmacists.


(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.