do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-188/20: Order of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, building, damages, improvement of housing, tendering, works contract








C_2021138EN.01005301.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/53






Order of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament
(Case T-188/20) (1)

(2021/C 138/71)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10049 — Partners Group/Atlantia/Telepass) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 57/01
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, provision of services, transport infrastructure








C_2021057EN.01000101.xml










17.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10049 — Partners Group/Atlantia/Telepass)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 57/01)
On 10 February 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 32021M10049. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-130/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Spadafora v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Vacancy notice — Post of head of unit — Rejection of application — Middle managers — Principle of impartiality — Responsibility)
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, administrator, appointment of members, competition (EU), damages, indemnification, job vacancy, right to justice








C_2021110EN.01002602.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/26






Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Spadafora v Commission
(Case T-130/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Vacancy notice - Post of head of unit - Rejection of application - Middle managers - Principle of impartiality - Responsibility)
(2021/C 110/29)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Sergio Spadafora (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: CC (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 18 May 2018 appointing CC as head of the [confidential] unit of the [confidential] Directorate and, second, an order that the Commission pay compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Sergio Spadafora to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and CC.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case C-56/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021 — RFA International LP v European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 11(9) and (10) — Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid — Constructed export price — Assessment as to whether the anti-dumping duties have been reflected in the resale prices and subsequent selling prices in the European Union — Obligation to apply the same methodology as in the investigation which led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty — Change in circumstances — Deduction of anti-dumping duties paid — Conclusive evidence)
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, export price, ferro-alloy, import (EU), originating product, selling price








C_2021128EN.01000301.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/3






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021 — RFA International LP v European Commission
(Case C-56/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 11(9) and (10) - Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid - Constructed export price - Assessment as to whether the anti-dumping duties have been reflected in the resale prices and subsequent selling prices in the European Union - Obligation to apply the same methodology as in the investigation which led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty - Change in circumstances - Deduction of anti-dumping duties paid - Conclusive evidence)
(2021/C 128/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: RFA International LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, advokat, M. Krestiyanova and E. Borovikov, avocats, N. Tuominen, avocată, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A. Demeneix and P. Němečková, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders RFA International LP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case T-821/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Herlyn and Beck v EUIPO — Brillux (B.home) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark B.home — Earlier international word mark B-Wohnen — 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: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, cosmetic product, hotel industry, marketing, property leasing, real estate business, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2021128EN.01003501.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/35






Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Herlyn and Beck v EUIPO — Brillux (B.home)
(Case T-821/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark B.home - Earlier international word mark B-Wohnen - 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 128/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Sonja Herlyn (Grünwald, Germany) and Christian Beck (Grünwald) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2019 (Case R 373/2019-5), concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Brillux and, on the other hand, Ms Herlyn and Mr Beck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Sonja Herlyn and Mr Christian Beck to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Decision of the General Court of 10 February 2021 on judicial vacations
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: holiday, operation of the Institutions, public holiday




C_2021088EN.01000401.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/4






DECISION OF THE GENERAL COURT
of 10 February 2021
on judicial vacations
(2021/C 88/03)
THE GENERAL COURT
Having regard to Article 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:


Article 1

For the judicial year beginning on 1 September 2021, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 41(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:






—


Christmas 2021: from Monday 20 December 2021 to Sunday 9 January 2022 inclusive,










—


Easter 2022: from Monday 11 April 2022 to Sunday 24 April 2022 inclusive,










—


Summer 2022: from Saturday 16 July 2022 to Wednesday 31 August 2022 inclusive.







Article 2

This decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Luxembourg, 10 February 2021.


Registrar

E. COULON



President

M. VAN DER WOUDE
Case T-117/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — MKR Design (PANTHÉ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark PANTHÉ — Earlier national word and figurative marks PANTHER and earlier EU figurative mark P PANTHER — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark)
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021128EN.01003502.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/35






Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — MKR Design (PANTHÉ)
(Case T-117/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark PANTHÉ - Earlier national word and figurative marks PANTHER and earlier EU figurative mark P PANTHER - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark)
(2021/C 128/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MKR Design Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Dragotti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2019 (Case R 378/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and MKR Design.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10123 - PPG/Tikkurila) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 47/09
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: dyestuffs industry, economic concentration, merger control, metal coating, paints and varnishes








C_2021047EN.01001201.xml










10.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10123 - PPG/Tikkurila)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 47/09)

1.   
On 3 February 2021, 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:






—


PPG Industries, Inc. (‘PPG’, USA),










—


Tikkurila Oyj (‘Tikkurila’, Finland)




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for PPG: the worldwide production and sale of coatings and specialty materials,










—


for Tikkurila: the production and sale of decorative and industrial coatings.






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.10123 — PPG/Tikkurila
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.10141 — Sanacorp Pharmahandel/Leopold Fiebig and Gerda Nückel) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 47/08
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical product, wholesale trade








C_2021047EN.01001001.xml










10.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10141 — Sanacorp Pharmahandel/Leopold Fiebig and Gerda Nückel)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 47/08)

1.   
On 1 February 2021, 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:






—


Leopold Fiebig GmbH & Co. KG (Germany),










—


Gerda Nückel GmbH (Germany),










—


Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH (Germany), ultimately controlled by astera SA (France) and Sanacorp eG Pharmazeutische Großhandlung (Germany).




Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Leopold Fiebig GmbH & Co. KG and Gerda Nückel GmbH.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH is a full-service wholesaler of pharmaceuticals operating on the German market.










—


Leopold Fiebig GmbH & Co. KG is a full-service wholesaler of pharmaceuticals based in Rheinstetten, operating in central and southern Germany.










—


Gerda Nückel GmbH is the general partner of Leopold Fiebig GmbH & Co. KG.






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.10141 — Sanacorp Pharmahandel/Leopold Fiebig and Gerda Nückel
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’).
Case T-578/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Sophia Group v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of assistance services for buildings — Rejection of a tenderer’s offer — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Most economically advantageous tender — Use of labels and certifications in the formulation of award criteria — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, building services, help desk, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2021128EN.01003401.xml










12.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/34






Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Sophia Group v Parliament
(Case T-578/19) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of assistance services for buildings - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Most economically advantageous tender - Use of labels and certifications in the formulation of award criteria - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 128/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Sophia Group (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Schneider and C.-H. de la Vallée Poussin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Tapper Brandberg and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 30 July 2019 to award Lot No 1 of the tender for the ‘Provision of Buildings HelpDesk services’ (Call for tenders 06A 0010/2019/M011) to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sophia Group to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case T-157/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LICHTYOGA) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark LICHTYOGA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, interpreting, recording equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, translation








C_2021110EN.01002902.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/29






Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LICHTYOGA)
(Case T-157/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LICHTYOGA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 110/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2019 (Case R 2317/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LICHTYOGA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case C-549/18: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Hexal v EMA
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product








C_2021138EN.01005201.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/52






Order of the President of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Hexal v EMA
(Case C-549/18) (1)

(2021/C 138/69)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Case T-98/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — mysuperbrand (medical beauty research) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark medical beauty research — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Consideration of the facts — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, cosmetic product, dental medicine, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2021110EN.01002801.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/28






Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — mysuperbrand (medical beauty research)
(Case T-98/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark medical beauty research - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Consideration of the facts - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 110/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Biochange Group GmbH (Bad Schlema, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union 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: mysuperbrand GmbH, formerly Laubender GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Woller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 114/2019-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Laubender and Biochange Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2019 (Case R 114/2019-2) as regards ‘baby food’ in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Biochange Group GmbH, EUIPO and mysuperbrand GmbH each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.
Case T-341/20: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark RADIOSHUTTLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Not distinctive — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)
Date: 2021-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, storage, trade-mark law








C_2021110EN.01003001.xml










29.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/30






Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE)
(Case T-341/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark RADIOSHUTTLE - Absolute ground for refusal - Not distinctive - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)
(2021/C 110/34)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: EAB AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 (Case R 1428/2019-1) regarding an application for registration of the word mark RADIOSHUTTLE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EAB AB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.