do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-506/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Saure v Commission
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, coronavirus disease, disclosure of information, epidemic, provision of documents, public health, vaccine








C_2021412EN.01002502.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/25






Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Saure v Commission
(Case T-506/21)
(2021/C 412/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s request to access Commission documents of 9 June 2021 through the issuing of copies of all minutes, summaries, memoranda, notes, files from meetings, negotiations, decisions, proposals, transcripts, emails, letters, records of telephone calls — in particular regarding advance purchase agreements — and specific contracts with pharmaceutical companies for the delivery of Covid-19 vaccines to combat the Covid-19 pandemic drawn up by the ‘Steering Committee’ and ‘Joint Negotiations Team’. By ‘advance purchase agreements’ we understand every contract for the purchase, delivery, securing, reservation, or development of Covid-19 vaccines for EU Member States;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The Commission’s refusal to grant access infringes that provision.










2.


Second plea in law: It is submitted that no ground for exclusion precludes the applicant’s right of access. In particular, the ground for exclusion set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s request. The disclosure of the information requested is necessary for numerous purposes in the public interest. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Furthermore, the risk of undermining must specifically and actually be raised and presented as an issue. The defendant has not however discharged that burden of raising and presenting an issue.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Case T-500/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (TOGETHER. FORWARD.)
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, smoking, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2021391EN.01002801.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/28






Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (TOGETHER. FORWARD.)
(Case T-500/21)
(2021/C 391/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TOGETHER. FORWARD. — Application for registration No 18 288 035

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2nd June 2021 in Case R 417/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and consequently paragraph 2 of said article 7 by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by with respect to the trademark at issue.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10406 - CD&R/MCC Group) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 328/03
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, labelling, merger control








C_2021328EN.01000301.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/3






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10406 - CD&R/MCC Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 328/03)

1.   
On 6 August 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:






—


Clayton, Dubilier & Rice (‘CD&R’, USA),










—


LABL Holding Corporation (USA), parent company of the LABL, Inc. group which includes W/S Packaging Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, as well as Multi-Colour Corporation and its subsidiaries (together ‘MCC’, USA).




CD&R indirectly acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of MCC.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for CD&R: private equity investment firm, which originates, structures and acts as lead equity investor in management buyouts, strategic minority equity investments and other strategic investments,










—


for MCC: manufacturer and supplier of labels to commercial customers across a range of sectors, including: home & personal care; food and beverage; healthcare; specialty; consumer durables; and wine & spirits.






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.10406 - CD&R/MCC Group
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-505/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipment)
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, toy industry








C_2021401EN.01001901.xml










4.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/19






Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipment)
(Case T-505/21)
(2021/C 401/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0010

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2021 in Case R 1003/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision to:






—


allow the applicant’s appeal,










—


dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 296 to declare the contested design invalid,










—


order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;














—


order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);










—


Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);










—


Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010.
Case T-507/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Migadakis v ENISA
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, competition (EU), coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, job vacancy








C_2021422EN.01002302.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/23






Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Migadakis v ENISA
(Case T-507/21)
(2021/C 422/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ioannis Migadakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare his application admissible and well founded;










—


annul the decision made against him;










—


order ENISA to pay the costs;










—


reserve the applicant the right to raise all other pleas of fact and of law to be argued at the appropriate time and place;










—


reserve the applicant the right to produce, in addition to the documents listed in the body of the present action, all documents at the appropriate time and place;










—


reserve the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, alleging violation of the legal framework. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the vacancy notice did not provide for remote examination and that he did not give his consent for remote written and oral examinations. The applicant adds that he did not have the choice between face-to-face and remote examinations. Moreover, according to the applicant, a remote examination in July 2020 was not justified because Greece had then been in the green zone since 4 May 2020, the date on which the lockdown ended. Finally, the applicant maintains that he was rejected for having obtained 60 points out of 100, whereas only eligible candidates having obtained 75/100 succeeded, it being specified that nothing was provided for in the notice concerning such a level of mark to be achieved.










2.


Second plea, alleging violation of the principle of equality on the ground that the competition was held in poor conditions. The applicant was therefore not treated equally with the other candidates.










3.


Third plea, alleging violation of the principle of objectivity of marks. The applicant submits in this regard that the questions in the oral and written examinations and the marks for the applicant’s answers were not objective.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 13 August 2021 2021/C 328/02
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021328EN.01000201.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 August 2021
(2021/C 328/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1765 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4370 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85093 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1993 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0829 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3753 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,386 




HUF


Hungarian forint


353,03 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5740 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9115 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,0648 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6006 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4724 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1573 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6776 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5967 




KRW


South Korean won


1 369,96 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4561 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6237 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4983 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 901,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9854 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,543 




RUB


Russian rouble


86,2279 




THB


Thai baht


39,213 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1611 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,3755 




INR


Indian rupee


87,3740 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-503/21 P: Appeal brought on 16 August 2021 by Bálint Krátky against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2021 in Case T-13/21 Krátky v European Parliament and Others
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, foreign currency, indemnification, real estate credit








C_2022222EN.01000602.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/6






Appeal brought on 16 August 2021 by Bálint Krátky against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2021 in Case T-13/21 Krátky v European Parliament and Others
(Case C-503/21 P)
(2022/C 222/09)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: Bálint Krátky (represented by: I. Kriston, ügyvéd)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission
By order of 22 March 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the costs.
Case T-501/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming the angle of a cube)
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, smoking, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2021391EN.01002802.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/28






Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming the angle of a cube)
(Case T-501/21)
(2021/C 391/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming the angle of a cube) — Application for registration No 18 252 130

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2021 in Case R 79/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the trademark at issue.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10367 — Platinum Equity Group/Grupo Urbaser) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 334/02
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, provision of services, waste management, water supply, water treatment








C_2021334EN.01000601.xml










20.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 334/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10367 — Platinum Equity Group/Grupo Urbaser)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 334/02)
On 16 August 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 32021M10367. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-498/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH)
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, coffee, instant product, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2021391EN.01002601.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/26






Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH)
(Case T-498/21)
(2021/C 391/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lotion LLC (Woodland Hills, California, United States) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BLACK IRISH — Application for registration No 18 189 156

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2021 in Case R 199/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the contested application for the contested goods and those goods currently claimed in the application;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant including in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of general principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.
Case T-502/21: Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming a square)
Date: 2021-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, smoking, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2021391EN.01002901.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/29






Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming a square)
(Case T-502/21)
(2021/C 391/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming a square) — Application for registration No 18 252 146

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 78/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the trademark at issue.