do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-12/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FL
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021088EN.01002201.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FL
(Case C-12/21)
(2021/C 88/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: FL

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 6 January 2021 to 6 January 2021 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.)) 2021/C 6/11
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: coronavirus disease, drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, vaccine








C_2021006EN.01001301.xml










8.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/13






Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 6 January 2021 to 6 January 2021


(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)
)


(2021/C 6/11)






—



Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted













Date of the decision


Name of the medicinal product


INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)


Holder of the marketing authorisation


Number of the entry in the Community Register


Pharmaceutical form


ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code)


Date of notification




6.1.2021


COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna


COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)


MODERNA BIOTECH SPAIN, S.L. Calle Monte Esquinza 30, 28010 Madrid, España


EU/1/20/1507


dispersion for injection


J07BX


6.1.2021




Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:






European Medicines Agency






Domenico Scarlattilaan 6






1083 HS Amsterdam






NETHERLANDS











(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Case C-10/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v TZ
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021088EN.01002101.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v TZ
(Case C-10/21)
(2021/C 88/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: TZ

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-8/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Germanwings GmbH v KV
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021088EN.01002001.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Germanwings GmbH v KV
(Case C-8/21)
(2021/C 88/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: KV

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.10083 — China Baowu/Taiyuan Iron & Steel Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 6/08
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, iron and steel industry, merger control, sale








C_2021006EN.01001001.xml










8.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/10






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.10083 — China Baowu/Taiyuan Iron & Steel Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 6/08)
On 30 November 2020, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 23 December 2020, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.


(1)  OJ C 424, 8.12.2020, p. 36.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9981 — Bain Capital/Ahlstrom-Munksjö) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 73/01
Date: 2021-01-08
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_2021073EN.01000101.xml










2.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9981 — Bain Capital/Ahlstrom-Munksjö)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 73/01)
On 8 January 2021, 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 32021M9981. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10103 — Towerbrook/Consolis Rail Division) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 6/14
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, engineering structure, investment company, merger control








C_2021006EN.01001801.xml










8.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/18






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10103 — Towerbrook/Consolis Rail Division)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 6/14)

1.   
On 23 December 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:






—


TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P. (‘Towerbrook’, USA),










—


Fourteen companies (‘Consolis Rail Division’) belonging to the Consolis Group SAS (‘Consolis’, France).




Six investment funds managed by Towerbrook will indirectly acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the whole Consolis Rail Division.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Towerbrook: investment firm active in large and middle European and North American markets with a wide portfolio of companies among the industrial, healthcare, financial, consumer goods, telecommunications, media and knowledge services sectors,










—


for Consolis Rail Division: companies active in design, manufacture and distribution of precast concrete products and in other precast concrete materials necessary to the construction of railway networks.






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.10103 — Towerbrook/Consolis Rail Division
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-7/21: Action brought on 8 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL)
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021062EN.01004801.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/48






Action brought on 8 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL)
(Case T-7/21)
(2021/C 62/60)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kassl Holding BV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark STUDIO KASSL — Application for registration No 17 882 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2020 in Case R 880/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in so far as in dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 3 059 000, granting the EU trademark No 17 882 647 STUDIO KASSL (word mark), to designate goods in Class 25;










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-9/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021088EN.01002002.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-9/21)
(2021/C 88/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: AX

Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-11/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v IY and TP
Date: 2021-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021088EN.01002102.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v IY and TP
(Case C-11/21)
(2021/C 88/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondents: IY, TP

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).