do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9977 — EPGC/Metro) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 417/08
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, economic concentration, electronic commerce, energy industry, investment company, mass media, merger control, urban infrastructure, wholesale trade








C_2020417EN.01005701.xml










2.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/57






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9977 — EPGC/Metro)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 417/08)

1.   
On 23 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:






—


EP Global Commerce a.s. (‘EPGC’, Czechia), controlled by Mr Daniel Křetínský (Czechia),










—


Metro AG (‘Metro’, Germany).




EPGC acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Metro.
The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 13 September 2020.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for EPGC: an acquisition vehicle currently holding a non-controling interest in Metro. EPGC is controlled by Mr Daniel Křetínský, who holds interests in companies active in the energy, utilities, media, and e-commerce sectors.










—


for Metro: active in the wholesale of daily consumer goods.






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.9977 — EPGC/Metro
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.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council authorising the Commission to vote in favour of the capital increase of the European Investment Fund’ (COM(2020) 774 final — 2020/0343 (COD))
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Commission, European Investment Fund, capital increase, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2021056EN.01006201.xml










16.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/62






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council authorising the Commission to vote in favour of the capital increase of the European Investment Fund’
(COM(2020) 774 final — 2020/0343 (COD))
(2021/C 56/10)






Referrals


European Parliament, 26.11.2020
Council of the European Union, 30.11.2020




Legal basis


Articles 173(3) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion




Adopted at plenary


2.12.2020




Plenary session No


556




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


207/1/8




Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the Proposal for a regulation establishing the InvestEU programme (1), adopted on 17 October 2018 and on its revision (2), adopted on 15 July 2020, it decided, at its 556th plenary session of 2 and 3 December 2020 (meeting of 2 December 2020), by 207 votes to 1 with 8 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 2 December 2020.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG




(1)  OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 131.

(2)  OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 139.
Case T-247/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Thunus and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Annual salary adjustment — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Staff consultation — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, pay, pay rise, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, wage determination, worker consultation








C_2021035EN.01004301.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/43






Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Thunus and Others v EIB
(Case T-247/19) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Staff consultation - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)
(2021/C 35/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Vincent Thunus (Contern, Luxembourg) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (i) seeking annulment of the decisions contained in the applicants’ pay slips for the month of February 2018 and the subsequent months, applying the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 18 July 2017 defining a new approach to the overall increase in staff salaries applicable to all EIB staff members and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 30 January 2018 fixing the adjustment rate of salaries for the year 2018 to 0,7 %, and (ii) seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr. Vincent Thunus and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB).






(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case T-35/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Representation of a scratch) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a claw-like scratch — Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing claw-like scratches — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021028EN.01004602.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/46






Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Representation of a scratch)
(Case T-35/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a claw-like scratch - Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing claw-like scratches - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 28/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nanjing aisiyou Clothing Co. Ltd (Nankin, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2019 (Case R 1104/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Nanjing aisiyou Clothing.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 November 2019 (Case R 1104/2019-5), in so far as it concerns the rejection of the opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-653/20 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2020 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: assistant, chronic illness, disciplinary proceedings, pay scale, promotion, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021148EN.01000502.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/5






Appeal brought on 2 December 2020 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO
(Case C-653/20 P)
(2021/C 148/06)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Guillaume Vincenti

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






1.


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO;










2.


order the applicant to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds of appeal:
First, the General Court misapplied Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by ruling that the official must be heard before a decision not to promote him is taken.
On the one hand, the General Court failed to recognise that there is no subjective right to promotion and that non-promotion does not constitute an infringement of rights.
On the other hand, the General Court also failed to recognise that non-promotion is not comparable to a punitive administrative act.
Second, the General Court held that it cannot be excluded that the decision could reasonably have led to a different result if EUIPO had heard the official beforehand. In that regard, there is a failure to state reasons because the General Court did not examine the applicant’s arguments.
Case T-178/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Kalai v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Proportionality — Right to property)
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2021028EN.01003801.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/38






Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Kalai v Council
(Case T-178/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property)
(2021/C 28/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nader Kalai (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, second, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Nader Kalai to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2019/2034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on the prudential supervision of investment firms and amending Directives 2002/87/EC, 2009/65/EC, 2011/61/EU, 2013/36/EU, 2014/59/EU and 2014/65/EU (Official Journal of the European Union L 314 of 5 December 2019)
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: capital market, disclosure of information, financial control, financial legislation, financial supervision, investment company, private-sector liquidity








L_2020405EN.01008401.xml










2.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 405/84







Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2019/2034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on the prudential supervision of investment firms and amending Directives 2002/87/EC, 2009/65/EC, 2011/61/EU, 2013/36/EU, 2014/59/EU and 2014/65/EU

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 314 of 5 December 2019
)








1.


On page 71, Article 2(2):




for:







‘2.


(…) in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033.’,





read:







‘2.


(…) in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) and third subparagraph of Article 1(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033.’.











2.


On page 102, Article 54:




for:


                  ‘In accordance with Section 3 of Chapter 2 of this Title, …’,

read:


                  ‘In accordance with Section 3 of Chapter 1 of this Title, …’.







3.


On page 110, Article 63, point (2):




for:







‘(2)


in Article 45, the following paragraph is added:











“3.


In accordance with Article 65(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, …”.’,






read:







‘(2)


in Article 45, the following paragraph is added:











“3.


In accordance with Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, …”.’.












4.


On page 113, Article 67(1), second subparagraph:




for:


                  ‘They shall apply those measures from 26 June 2021. However, Member States shall apply the measures necessary to comply with point (5) of Article 64 from 26 March 2020.’,

read:


                  ‘They shall apply those measures from 26 June 2021. However, Member States shall apply the measures necessary to comply with point (6) of Article 62 as regards Article 8a(3) of Directive 2013/36/EU by 27 December 2020, and the measures necessary to comply with point (5) of Article 64 from 26 March 2020.’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9981 — Bain Capital/Ahlstrom-Munksjö) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 417/09
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, economic concentration, financial services, health care, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, processing industry, pulp and paper industry, supplier








C_2020417EN.01005801.xml










2.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/58






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9981 — Bain Capital/Ahlstrom-Munksjö)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 417/09)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


Bain Capital Investors L.L.C. (‘Bain Capital’) (USA),










—


Ahlstrom-Munksjö Oyj (‘Ahlstrom-Munksjö’) (Finland).




Bain Capital acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Ahlstrom-Munksjö. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Bain Capital: a private equity investment firm that invests in companies across a number of industries, including information technology, healthcare, retail and consumer products, communications, financial services and industrial/manufacturing,










—


for Ahlstrom-Munksjö: a global manufacturer and supplier of fibre-based materials. Its offering includes filter materials, release liners, food and beverage processing materials, décor papers, abrasive and tape backings, electro-technical base paper, glass fibre materials, medical fibre materials and solutions for diagnostics as well as a range of specialty papers for industrial and consumer end-uses.






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.9981 — Bain Capital/Ahlstrom-Munksjö
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.10069 — HDI Assicurazioni/Amissima Assicurazioni) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 417/07
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, provision of services








C_2020417EN.01005501.xml










2.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 417/55






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10069 — HDI Assicurazioni/Amissima Assicurazioni)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 417/07)

1.   
On 24 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:






—


HDI Assicurazioni S.p.A. (‘HDI’, Italy), controlled by the Talanx Group (‘Talanx’, Germany),










—


Amissima Assicurazioni S.p.A. (‘Amissima’, Italy).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for HDI: provision and distribution of life and non-life insurance products in Italy,










—


for Talanx: provision and distribution of insurance and reinsurance products worldwide,










—


for Amissima: provision and distribution of non-life insurance products in Italy.






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.10069 — HDI Assicurazioni/Amissima Assicurazioni
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-687/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — inMusic Brands v EUIPO — Equipson (Marq) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Marq — Earlier national and international figurative marks MARK — 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) — Declaration of partial invalidity)
Date: 2020-12-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer equipment, electrical equipment, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021028EN.01004201.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/42






Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — inMusic Brands v EUIPO — Equipson (Marq)
(Case T-687/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Marq - Earlier national and international figurative marks MARK - 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) - Declaration of partial invalidity)
(2021/C 28/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: inMusic Brands, Inc. (Cumberland, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Equipson, SA (Silla, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 (Case R 1759/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Equipson and inMusic Brands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders inMusic Brands, Inc., to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.