do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10245 — TA Associates/Partners Group/Unit4) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 201/02
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, health care, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services, technology








C_2021201EN.01000201.xml










28.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10245 — TA Associates/Partners Group/Unit4)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 201/02)
On 21 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 32021M10245. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10242 — Melitta/Hubert Burda Media/Roast Market) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 219/04
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: coffee, economic concentration, electronic commerce, household electrical appliance, marketing, mass media, merger control, printing, provision of services, retail trade








C_2021219EN.01000401.xml










9.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10242 — Melitta/Hubert Burda Media/Roast Market)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 219/04)
On 21 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 German language 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 32021M10242. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-287/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01006501.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/65






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)
(Case T-287/21)
(2021/C 278/88)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SALATINA — European Union trade mark No 15 940 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 889/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present application;










—


reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 905 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark SALATINA and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;










—


order EUIPO to pay all costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on grounds of bad faith;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10266 — Astorg Asset Management/Corialis) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 219/02
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, building materials, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2021219EN.01000201.xml










9.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10266 — Astorg Asset Management/Corialis)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 219/02)
On 21 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 32021M10266. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-316/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 21 May 2021 — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent, other parties: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, professional qualifications, public procurement, tendering








C_2021320EN.01002801.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 21 May 2021 — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent, other parties: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA
(Case C-316/21)
(2021/C 320/27)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Monument Vandekerckhove NV

Defendant: Stad Gent

Interveners: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA

Questions referred







1.


Must the second paragraph of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, taken on its own and in conjunction with the scope of the principles of European law, namely equality, non-discrimination and transparency in public procurement, be interpreted as meaning that, if the contracting authority ascertains that an entity on whose capacity an economic operator relies does not fulfil the selection criteria, it is obliged to request that entity’s replacement or that it has the option to request such replacement if the economic operator wishes to be selected?










2.


Are there circumstances in which, on the basis of the principles of equality, non-discrimination and transparency, and also depending on the conduct of the award procedure, the contracting authority is not, or is no longer, obliged, or is not, or is no longer, permitted to insist on replacement?






(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
Case T-285/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Alliance française de Bruxelles-Europe and Others v Commission
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU institution, EU office or agency, award of contract, consortium, language teaching, tendering








C_2021278EN.01006301.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/63






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Alliance française de Bruxelles-Europe and Others v Commission
(Case T-285/21)
(2021/C 278/86)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alliance française de Bruxelles-Europe (Brussels, Belgium) and seven other applicants (represented by: E. van Nuffel d'Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


order, until the order terminating the procedure for interim relief is issued, the suspension of the operation of the European Commission’s decision to award lot 4 (French language) of the contract relating to Framework Contracts on Language Training for the Institutions, Bodies and Agencies of the European Union (No HR/2020/OP/0014), in first place, to the consortium CLL Centre de Langues — Allingua and, in second place, to the consortium Alliance Europe Multilingue, comprised of the applicants, and adopt any other necessary measure, including indicating the effect of that suspension on any contract concluded in breach of the standstill period laid down by Article 175 of the Financial Regulation;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





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 a failure to provide sufficient reasons, in breach of Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation. In that regard, the applicants claim that an examination of the reasons provided concerning the qualities of the tender submitted by the applicants and the characteristics and advantages of the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer does not show any correlation between the assessment and the rating awarded, and that it is therefore not possible to understand why the applicants’ tender is rated lower than the tender of the highest-ranked tenderer.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to exercise its discretion effectively in that the European Commission refused to weigh up parts of the technical proposal of the applicants’ tender which were accessible via a coded hypertext link incorporated into their tender, on the ground that those parts could have been submitted or modified after the deadline for submitting tenders had expired, without determining specifically whether there was such a risk.










3.


Third plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging a manifest failure of assessment, in that there is no clear correlation between the assessment of the intrinsic qualities of the tender submitted by the applicants and the rating assigned to the quality criteria.
Case C-321/21 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Denmark; Covid-19)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, low cost airline, principle of proportionality, right of establishment








C_2021349EN.01001701.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/17






Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Denmark; Covid-19)
(Case C-321/21 P)
(2021/C 349/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic, SAS AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2416 final of 15 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56795 (2020/N) — Denmark — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.
First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the Commission breached the requirement that aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU is not to make good the damage suffered by a single victim.
Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle in relation to damage caused to SAS by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.
Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.
Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.
Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.
Case T-284/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENČKI HRAM)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021278EN.01006201.xml










12.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/62






Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENČKI HRAM)
(Case T-284/21)
(2021/C 278/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RENČKI HRAM — European Union trade mark No 15 297 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 1050/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present application;










—


reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No. 34 709 C of 12 May 2020 in such manner to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark RENČKI HRAM and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;










—


in the alternative, to annul the contested decision;










—


remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;










—


order EUIPO to pay all costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) Infringement of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-319/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 21 May 2021 — Agecontrol SpA v ZR, Lidl Italia Srl
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designation of origin, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, labelling, originating product, packaged product, transport document








C_2021310EN.01001102.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 21 May 2021 — Agecontrol SpA v ZR, Lidl Italia Srl
(Case C-319/21)
(2021/C 310/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agecontrol SpA

Respondents: ZR, Lidl Italia Srl

Question referred

Must Article 5(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 8 of that regulation and with Articles 113 and 113a of Council Regulation (EU) No 1234/2007 (2) of 22 October 2007, be interpreted as meaning that an accompanying document must be issued indicating the name and the country of origin of fresh fruit and vegetables shipped pre-packed or in the original packaging provided by the producer, during transport from a seller company’s distribution platform to a point of sale of the same company, irrespective of the fact that one side of the packaging features the information particulars required by Chapter I [of Title II] of Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (including the name and country of origin of the goods) indelibly printed directly onto the package or on a label which is an integral part of the package or affixed to it, and irrespective of the fact that this information is also shown on the invoices issued by the supplier from which the goods were purchased by the seller company kept in that company’s accounting offices and on a notice placed in an obvious position inside the means of transport in which the goods are being conveyed?


(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).
Case T-38/21 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 May 2021 — Inivos and Inivos v Commission (Application for interim relief — Public procurement — Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2021-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, coronavirus disease, decontamination, epidemic, invitation to tender, medical institution, public procurement, robotisation, supplies contract, tendering








C_2021263EN.01002402.xml










5.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/24






Order of the President of the General Court of 21 May 2021 — Inivos and Inivos v Commission
(Case T-38/21 R)
(Application for interim relief - Public procurement - Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
(2021/C 263/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Inivos Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Inivos BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Martens and L. Hoet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU to suspend the operation of ‘Framework contracts for disinfection robots for European hospitals (COVID-19)’ FW-00103506 and FW-00103507, concluded by the Commission on 19 November 2020 with two tenderers.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.