do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10236 — Goldman Sachs/Oikos) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 351/07
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, housing, investment, investment company, merger control, prefabrication, provision of services, securities








C_2021351EN.01002001.xml










1.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/20






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10236 — Goldman Sachs/Oikos)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 351/07)
On 4 May 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 32021M10236. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-237/21: Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, consultancy, financial services, financial transaction, marketing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021252EN.01002901.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/29






Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)
(Case T-237/21)
(2021/C 252/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (Jacksonville, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banca IFIS SpA (Mestre, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FIS — Application for registration No 13 232 236

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2021 in Case R 1460/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision;










—


order the EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-242/21: Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Pšonka v Council
Date: 2021-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, public prosecutor's department, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021263EN.01002601.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/26






Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Pšonka v Council
(Case T-242/21)
(2021/C 263/35)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Artem Viktorovyč Pšonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as that decision and that regulation relate to the applicant;










—


Declare that the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration






—


The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property






—


The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.






—


The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property.










(1)  OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2.