do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-814/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Rail freight market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU — Access by third-party undertakings to infrastructure managed by Lithuania’s national railway company — Removal of a section of railway track — Concept of ‘abuse’ — Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor — Calculation of the amount of the fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method for setting fines — Remedies — Proportionality — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Lithuania, carriage of goods, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, principle of proportionality, public sector, rail network, sanction (EU), transport infrastructure








C_2021009EN.01001301.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/13






Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission
(Case T-814/17) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Rail freight market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU - Access by third-party undertakings to infrastructure managed by Lithuania’s national railway company - Removal of a section of railway track - Concept of ‘abuse’ - Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor - Calculation of the amount of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method for setting fines - Remedies - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2021/C 9/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: W. Deselaers, K. Apel and P. Kirst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Intervener, in support of the defendant: Orlen Lietuva AB (Mažeikiai, Lithuania) (represented by: C. Thomas and C. Conte, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU (Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail) and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB by Article 2 of European Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU (Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail) at EUR 20 068 650;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Lietuvos geležinkeliai and the Commission to bear their own costs;










4.


Orders Orlen Lietuva AB to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Case T-695/20: Action brought on 18 November 2020 — OG v EIB
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, building safety, indemnification, occupational disease, suicide, traineeship, trauma, worker with disabilities








C_2021035EN.01005302.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/53






Action brought on 18 November 2020 — OG v EIB
(Case T-695/20)
(2021/C 35/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OG (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;




and accordingly,






—


order the EIB to pay 16 months’ salary and 6 months’ severance pay, i.e. the sum of EUR 317 668 at the time of the initial claim for compensation of 23 October 2019, an amount to be updated at the time of payment;










—


order the EIB to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;










—


where appropriate, annul the decision rejecting the claim for compensation, dated 9 March and received on 10 March 2020;










—


where appropriate, annul the decision implicitly dismissing the appeal to a higher court, taken on 8 August 2020;










—


order, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure, access to the SSTL report;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking to invoke the liability of the European Investment Bank (EIB), on account of a series of events which, taken individually or collectively, reveal wrongful conduct on the part of the EIB which has caused her harm and illness, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breaches of the duties to have regard for the welfare of officials, of sound administration and of transparency allegedly committed by the EIB and, more generally, breach of the general duty of care and diligence incumbent on every employer.
In the present case, the applicant claims that, had the EIB regularly taken the appropriate security measures in its building, the tragic suicide of a trainee would not have happened. She also claims that, had the EIB assumed its responsibilities with regard to that suicide and fulfilled its obligations of transparency and support, openness and assistance in respect of it agents and, in particular, those such as the applicant who were affected by that suicide, the applicant would not today be an agent in invalidity, in grief and whose career and recognition of her merits no longer exist in the eyes of the employer whom she has nevertheless served loyally.
The applicant argues that the facts also show that the EIB, far from behaving like a responsible and protective employer, engaged in a policy of discrediting and devaluing the applicant following the trainee’s suicide, to the point of her physical and mental breakdown. After 30 years of an exemplary career, the applicant feels she has been treated as a mediocre and dishonest employee.
Case T-664/19: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA — Genuine use of the mark — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021009EN.01001701.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/17






Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)
(Case T-664/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 9/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, V.J. Ruzek, and K. Zajfert, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Co. and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Allergan Holdings France to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-643/19: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM ULTRA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA — Genuine use of the mark — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered — Use in the form in which the mark was registered — Use with the proprietor’s consent — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021009EN.01001602.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/16






Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM ULTRA)
(Case T-643/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Use with the proprietor’s consent - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 9/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, V.J. Ruzek, and K. Zajfert, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Co. and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dermavita Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Allergan Holdings France to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-378/19: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark TC CARL — Earlier national figurative mark CARL TOUCH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, printer, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021019EN.01004701.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/47






Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)
(Case T-378/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark TC CARL - Earlier national figurative mark CARL TOUCH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 19/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carl International (Limonest, France) (represented by: B. Müller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2019 (Case R 1617/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Carl International and Topcart.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Topcart GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10027 — Lone Star/McCarthy & Stone) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 393/08
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, property development, real estate business, social facilities








C_2020393EN.01001001.xml










18.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10027 — Lone Star/McCarthy & Stone)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 393/08)

1.   
On 12 November 2020, 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:






—


Lone Star Real Estate Fund VI, L.P (Bermuda), belonging to the group Lone Star Funds (USA & Bermuda),










—


McCarthy & Stone PLC (UK).




Lone Star Real Estate Fund VI, L.P acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of McCarthy & Stone PLC.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a public bid announced on 23 October 2020.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Lone Star is a private equity firm that invests globally in real estate, equity, credit and other financial assets;










—


McCarthy & Stone PLC develops and manages retirement properties in the UK.






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.10027 — Lone Star/McCarthy & Stone
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-271/10 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020– H v Council (Common foreign and security policy — National staff member on secondment to the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Redeployment decision — Misuse of powers — Interests of the service — Psychological harassment — Punitive nature of the redeployment — Liability — Non-material damage)
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU police mission, indemnification, police cooperation, psychological harassment, reassignment








C_2021028EN.01003501.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/35






Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020– H v Council
(Case T-271/10 RENV II) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - National staff member on secondment to the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Redeployment decision - Misuse of powers - Interests of the service - Psychological harassment - Punitive nature of the redeployment - Liability - Non-material damage)
(2021/C 28/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: H (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Chief of Personnel of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by which the applicant was redeployed to the post of Criminal Justice Advisor — Prosecutor at the regional office in Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and (ii) of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of EUPM referred to in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ 2009 L 322, p. 22), indicating the operational reason for her redeployment and, second, an action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Chief of Personnel of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia Herzegovina, by which H was redeployed to the post of Criminal Justice Adviser — Prosecutor in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of the EUPM, referred to in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP, of 8 December 2009 on the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina, indicating the operational reason for her redeployment;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay H the sum of EUR 30 000;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Council to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by H in the present case and in Cases T-271/10, T-271/10 R, T-271/10 RENV, C-455/14 P and C-413/18 P.






(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1753 of 18 November 2020 approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication ‘Ribeiro’ (PDO)
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Galicia, Spain, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, sparkling wine, white wine, wine of superior quality








L_2020395EN.01000201.xml










25.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 395/2








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1753
of 18 November 2020
         
approving amendments to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication ‘Ribeiro’ (PDO)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Commission has examined the application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Ribeiro’, forwarded by Spain in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(2)


The Commission has published the application for the approval of the amendments to the specification in the Official Journal of the European Union, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (2).












(3)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(4)


The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Ribeiro’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 November 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 196, 11.6.2020, p. 33.
Case T-21/20: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Staszewski (K7) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark K7 — Earlier EU word mark k7 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mobile phone, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021019EN.01004801.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/48






Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Staszewski (K7)
(Case T-21/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark K7 - Earlier EU word mark k7 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 19/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Miłosz Staszewski (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: E. Gryc Zerych, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 (Case R 401/2019 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Staszewski and LG Electronics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders LG Electronics, Inc., to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.